Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn

There have been countless screen versions of the famous Mark Twain novel on which this movie is based. I have even seen musicals, television series and a Russian version, to name a few. They have been of variable quality. I suspect, if you are not a Mark Twain fan and have never seen one of the classic movies based on this book, then you may find this movie acceptable. To be honest though, this has to be one of the worst versions of the book ever made.

That's hardly surprising, because it is obvious that this was chiefly made, not to bring the famous book to a new generation, but to cash in on the popularity of the two young stars. As a consequence, many liberties are taken with the plot - the most nauseating being the attempt to depict a romance between Tom Sawyer and Becky Thatcher, something that didn't exist in the book and which would have been unthinkable for the 'real' Tom. The makers are none-too-careful about keeping the dialogue correct for the time. Tom and Huck constantly refer to each other as 'buddies' and Tom constantly calls his friend 'Hucky'.

And then there is the acting. Joel Courtney is appealing as Tom and Jake T Austin is a bit wooden but acceptable as Huck. Both are miscast though. It is in the adults, however, that the most egregiously bad acting is seen. In fact, I will go so far as to say that there is not one good actor in the bunch. The only one you will have heard of is Val Kilmer who, under many layers of make-up, plays Mark Twain. The chap who plays Injun Joe sounds like a New York Gangster. The man who plays Tom's teacher is just awful!

One red flag I didn't see till the credits rolled was that this movie was written, directed and produced by the one person. That's often a danger sign, only exceeded by having the family members of this person in the case. It was certainly a danger sign in this case.

Like I said, if you've never read Tom Sawyer, if you have never seen any of the many, many better movies then you may find this acceptable. If you're not in that group, give this a miss.

Garbage trash. Why remake this? The one with the kid from home improvement is so much better. I was shocked at how bad the cinematography is, from the cinematographer that made 300: rise of an empire and spectre?!?!? I guess it must be a cheap budget, poor pre production and horrible directing. This movie even makes a good cinematographer look bad. I mean wow. Also, why hire cal Kilmer and then cover him in cheap makeup and have him disguise his voice or possibly have a different voice over actor overlay his voice over val's?? Wouldn't even have guessed in a million years that is was Kilmer if I hadn't seen his name in the credits. Good grief how does a movie like this get funded? Go find some good stuff, like my movies.

The acting here is really awful and the cast is so bad I was expecting a white guy in black face to play Jim. This would have been a nightmare to work on, as the production quality is fair, but every day watching the daily's your face would hurt from "Face Palm". This movie should NOT have been made! Fern Champion & Marianne Stanicheva the people credited with casting, should NEVER work again!

The positives: 1. Another fine performance from the boy who plays in Super 8. 2. Great soundtrack. Really. It doesn't seem to fit this film. The negatives: 1. Poor screenplay. Dialogue tries to be faithful to time period but comes off very odd and wooden/ artificial. 2. Poor casting. Outside of the main character of Tom, every other actor seems destined to play in B movies. 3. Poor editing. No doubt due to (1) above, but the editing was choppy, in large part due to a choppy storyline / script. 4. Poorly synced voice overs (see #5). 5. Poor casting. The teacher has a jarringly odd, non-Midwestern accent (German?) which simply pulls the viewer out of the movie. Becky is a fine actress but is just not well cast to this Tom. The judge clearly never voices a single line; everything is (poorly) dubbed for this Bulgarian actor. 6. Dialogue tried to be faithful to the time period but failed. Toward the end, I believe Tom even says "fudge" for "fu--." Dialogue /scripting was just very artificial. 7. Storyline was methodical but never natural. Things "happened." But it never flowed. 8. Some scenes of the Mississippi were shot on 16 mm (or poorer quality film stock) and inserted into the movie, but they don't integrate well. 9. Narratives of Mark Twain (Val Kilmer) interrupt the story, and, while they introduce a novel concept to the storyline, simply feel odd/off to story progression. In short, this really felt like a C movie (not even a B movie) in caliber, due to uneven production value.

This remake destroyed a classic. The acting sucked, the story wasn't even close to the movie I watched as a child, there were numerous mistakes made by film crew when editing the movie... just all around a waste of time.