NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

ChampDavSlim The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

moonspinner55 Mark Twain's timeless story turned into a wholesome, plastic-coated musical with cutesy-poo asides and unmemorable songs. Composers Richard and Robert Sherman also adapted the screenplay, but they don't have the feel of Twain's prose down (or perhaps the book is singularly impossible to adequately get on film?). Johnny Whitaker, a fine child actor of the 1970s, tries his best as young Tom Sawyer, a hell-raisin', tall tale-tellin' ragamuffin in 1840s Hannibal, Missouri; Whitaker isn't a singer (not many in the cast are), yet these songs would likely trip anybody up. Instantly forgettable, the lead-in for each tune takes an excruciating four or five seconds of hesitation, as if this were an old musical from the 1940s. Despite real Missouri locations, there isn't much here that rings true. Not Celeste Holm's Aunt Polly (who punishes Tom and then smiles wistfully at his antics, ready to burst into song), nor Warren Oates as whiskey-swillin' Muff Potter. Jeff East is sorely miscast as Tom's best friend, drop-out Huckleberry Finn (East appears to have wandered in from the nearest citified casting agency), although Jodie Foster is nearly-perfect as girlfriend Becky Thatcher (it probably helped that Foster and Whitaker had already made a picture together, 1972's "Napoleon and Samantha", as they have a built-in rapport which is immediately apparent). The 1800s milieu--from the schoolhouse to the riverboat landing to the picnic grounds--is distinctly artificial, rendering the end results a misfire in a sub-Disney vein. Reader's Digest financed the project (they followed this with a sequel, "Huckleberry Finn", in 1974), and were nearly trumped by a TV-version of Twain's book which aired the same week this movie premiered! *1/2 from ****

callie-5 I saw this one in the theater when it was released and still love it! This is the perfect example of a "Classic Family Movie". The harshest word you hear is "damn". The performances are wonderful to watch from the entire cast (Jodie Foster may be the weakest of them all, but just my opinion), the music fits beautifully (thanks to the Sherman brothers) and the settings make me feel the era. An enjoyable way to spend a Saturday afternoon. And to the reviewer who commented on Celeste Holm's "attempt" to sing - check her resume, my friend. Everyone who knows her work (see "High Society" or the 1965 version of "Cinderella", or just listen to the Original Broadway Cast recording of "Oklahoma!") knows she CAN!

adrian2umortal I love this version of the Tom Sawyer Story. I watched this movie as a kid and will still watch it today. Jodie Foster is really cute as Becky Thatcher. This movie was made and financed by Reader Digest but as I have seen it is now under ownership by MGM/UA Home Video and only available on the slowly decaying VHS format. Hey, MGM, get this movie digitally upgraded to DVD with all the bells and whistles digitally upgraded beyond what they originally were. DVD is the soon to be only video format and this movie needs to be on it. I also would like to see the musical sequel about Huck Finn done the same way.

RodReels-2 The music is mediocre at best, and Johnnie Whitaker doesn't come anywhere near to suggesting Tom Sawyer. This one is fun just to see a ten-year-old Jodie Foster as Tom's girl Becky Thatcher and to hear Warren Oates and Celeste Holm attempt to sing. But for fans of the original novel, the 1938 Selznick version is still hard to beat.