Ernest Hemingway once said that all American literature began with "Huckleberry Finn." A bit of an exaggeration from Papa, but there was certainly nothing like "Huckleberry Finn" before it came along. Twain's novel was uniquely uncompromising. At the very beginning, Huck's father shakes a jug of booze and, when asked if there's anything left in it, replies that there ought to be enough left for one more case of the DTs.It's hard to imagine that this was ever a popular children's story, although all adults seem convinced that it is -- or was. More likely it's a keen projection of grown-up escape fantasies. "They're trying' to civilize me again, Jim. Let's go!" I haven't read the novel in years but this is about as close an adaptation as we're likely to see. The novel, the film, and the hero are utterly bereft of sentimentality. The story spares no one and no ideology. The irony -- Huck is the naive narrator with no sense of humor -- cuts into everything and leaves it bleeding, from slavery to abolitionists -- Evangelical Christians, European royalty, bourgeois values, rustic simplicity, the fine arts, populism, the traps of tradition.The funniest episode in the film involves Richard Kiley as the sanctimonious and brain-dead head of the middle-class Grangerford family, involved in a feud with the Shepherdsons. Kiley's performance is priceless. After saying grace at the family table, he dabs at his nose and sniffs as he presents Huck with some examples of his dear, departed daughter's crayon art works. The first is a dreadful child's drawing called something like, "The Weeping Willow and Me, Alas." The other is the last work of poor Emiline's, a wretched sketch of a woman flying on wings. Huck asks: "It's very nice, sir, but why does the lady have six arms?" On the verge of breaking down, Kiley replies: "Dear Emiline tried them all to see which pair looked best but she was taken from us before she could decide." I simply can't see a twelve-year-old kid finding that as funny as I do.Nice set design, location shooting, acting, and adherence to the source have turned this often soppy story into a well executed TV movie. It was shown in 1985, so Jim remains "Nigger Jim" instead of "###### Jim." It wasn't until 1995 that Detective Fuhrman in the O. J. Simpson trial made the N word unspeakable outside the proper social borders. But I'm glad because if anything would completely wreck a satire like "Huckleberry Finn", it's political correctness. It would lose half its impact. Mrs. Loftus wouldn't be able to tell that Huck was a boy disguised as a girl because of the way he claps his legs together (instead of spreading them) to catch a fruit in his lap.Twain left off writing the novel for some time before taking it up again, and it shows because the last fifth or so doesn't quite jibe with the unsparing beginning. And the truth is that the story really is episodic, Huck and Jim having one adventure after another on their trip down the Mississippi. There is, however, at least two important features that maintain continuity. One is the relationship between Huck and Jim, and the other is Huck's rebellion against the corrupting effects of what he calls "civilization", and the film takes care of both of these questions in a more or less satisfying way.One of the Grangerford sons, a boy of about Huck's age, tells him that the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons are in a feud, and when Huck asks what a "feud" is, the other boy explains it this way. One man kills another. Then the brother of the dead man kills the first man. Then the cousins chip in, and pretty soon all the relatives are killing one another. And then when they're all dead and nobody is left, the feud is over. You know something? Maybe it's not just children that won't get the irony. I can think of some adults who might profit from a scrutiny of the moral message.

I've never seen such attention to detail. However, I got the feeling that many scenes were left on the cutting room floor that would have made the movie even better. For instance, the feuding family that was after Buck could have been included. That storyline told so much about Twain's take on the senselessness of war. Also, the cast was incredible. It seemed that with every turn of the page, I was seeing another familiar Hollywood face, from Emma Thompson, to Butterfly Mc- Queen, to Lillian Gish. My God, the casting was just remarkable. Young Patrick Day was the most perfectly cast of all. I commend PBS on a spectacular accomplishment. I would love to see it shown more often.

This is a brilliant adaptation of the classic novel, especially by telemovie standards. It isn't at all schmaltsy or patronizing. The leads of Patrick Day, Jim Dale and Barnard Hughes give life and personality to their characters very well. And it certainly captures both the humor and sharp social commentary of the novel excellently.<Spoiler warning.>My only disappointment with this version is that Huck sounds a little bit too well-educated and formal for what is essentially a 19th century "street kid" with a minimum amount of formal education, even though the essential "street smarts" and sympathetic nature of the character are preserved. And also, the final big con scheme is totally deleted. (They probably ran out of time and money). The over-all pacing is also a tad slow. (By the way, I saw this as a video version which was apparently edited down from an original mini-series).I still like the 1993 version of the story the best, but this is a very close second in my estimation.

This film will delight both childern and adults alike !! It's based on the classic novel by Mark Twain and has a all-star cast. Huck, a rambunctious boy adventurer chafing under the bonds of civilization, escapes his humdrum world and his selfish, plotting father by sailing a raft down the Mississippi River. Accompanying him are his friends Tom Sawyer and Jim, a slave running away from being sold. Together they strike a bond of friendship that takes them through adventures. It's really good.