Les aventuriers du fleuve

68/100. Although it takes quite a few liberties with the Mark Twain novel, the appearances of many well known guest stars and an exceptional quality in its production make it a very entertaining movie. It appears they were trying to make it more of a movie geared more towards family viewing.

Fine cinematography and art direction. I was never bored, it wisely is not too long. Eddie Hodges is a little weak as Huckleberry Finn, and since it is such a pivotal role, that does hurt the effectiveness of the film somewhat. Tony Randall is very good, Buster Keaton has a nice bit as well, as does Andy Devine, Sterling Holloway and Neville Brand.

I had the pleasure of watching the final scene of this film being shot back in 1959. I was six years old and witnessing this began my lifelong love for the movies. When the film arrived in our city, I was struck by Jerome Morross' incredible music score, which completely captured the sense of adventure, wonder and beauty of life on the Mississippi River and rural Missouri. The film itself is robust, dramatic and filled with Mark Twain's colorful, classic words. The cast is perfect and Michael Curtiz' direction keeps the action flowing. This is a wonderful film for all ages.

It's the Mark Twain classic. Huckleberry Finn fakes his own death to escape his abusive father. He travels down the Mississippi River with fellow runaway, a slave named Jim. They form a strong bond and encounter various people including two con men. I've never read the book. Somehow, I escaped it in school. I do know the broad strokes. The movie has a bit of cursing and I counted one n* word. There could be more but it's not quite the book. I can't talk to the faithfulness of the adaptation. The story is much more fitting for a mini-series with its episodic nature. The kid is pretty good. He has the rambunctiousness. Jim needs a bigger performer. It's easier to dial it down than it is to dial it up. All in all, their friendship is what sells the movie and the story. They do well in that aspect and thereby makes this movie work.

Adaptation-wise, die-hard fans of the book will find plenty of fault. On its own this film is not bad at all, actually from this viewer's perspective it was decent. Of the 5 Huckleberry Finn adaptations on film that I've seen it is around the middle, with the 1938 Mickey Rooney film being the best and the 1975 Ron Howard film(the only one of the 5 that was anywhere close to bad) being the worst. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn(1970) could have been better. Eddie Hodges was a little weak and somewhat too prim for Huck and while there are some tense, heart-warming and moving moments the storytelling could have been much stronger. The additions and some omissions didn't always make the narrative cohesive(for example much more could have been done with the ending)- though the Ron Howard does a much worse job at this- and because the grimmer parts of the book are trimmed down or diluted there are times, not always mind, where things did come across as a little on the "cute" side. The adaptation is beautifully filmed though with evocative and quite charming locations and river settings(where the photography was at its most striking). The music score is rousing, foreboding and poignant at all the times it's called for and it is placed appropriately, while the scripting is colourful and generally makes an effort to capture the spirit of Mark Twain's own writing and while not all the storytelling is as good as it could've been it is difficult not to be moved by Jim's talking of his deaf child(something that anybody would identify with). The acting is good generally. Archie Moore is just great and very dignified as Jim(his chemistry with Hodges just about convinces), while Neville Brand is a brutish Pap, Mickey Shaughnessy is appropriately oafish with an ability to be menacing and humorous and Tony Randall's King is superbly conniving. Buster Keaton and Andy Devine also make lively appearances in one of the more delightful and chemistry-strong scenes of the film. All in all, a decent film but "purists" may want to look elsewhere. 7/10 Bethany Cox

All the acting was superb. The sets were...well, it was 1960. But the script! To hear Mark Twain so joyfully transposed, and so artfully accurate for the film characters and actors! What a straight, simple joy to see this film, made to entertain and doing it proudly, with all concerned -- actors and director mainly -- working on the same premise. And tell me Tony Randall didn't go home whistling after every day on the set! But this was Mark Twain done proud. How many other great writers so easily lend themselves to film scripts? What a writer! What fun he had with phrases, sayings and words. And how well all that was put to use in this movie. And PS Archie Moore was a great heavyweight.