User reviews

I love the Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn stories, and have collected as many filmed versions as possible, including updated ones. When this DVD appeared, I had high hopes of its content because of the presence of Jake T. Austin & Joel Courtney, both likable and very capable young actors. Oh dear, what a mess it turned out to be, adapted and directed by Jo Kastner from Germany, and filmed in Bulgaria. It was clear from the start that Kastner had little cultural grasp on Mark Twain's small town, mid-West American world in the middle of the 19th Century, nor any grasp whatsoever of pace and depth in presenting the characters and story. It is an express train journey through "Tom Sawyer", with a bit of "Huckleberry Finn" pointlessly stuck on the end, with no time to explore or indulge in the unfolding scenes. The inclusion of Val Kilmer (doubtless for "star" appeal) portraying the author Mark Twain wasted valuable time which should have gone into the main plot.

Whilst Joel Courtney did his smiling best in the role of Tom Sawyer, Jake T. Austin played Huckleberry Finn at best with detachment if not actually in a continuous sulk, perhaps aware of the poor material he was made to perform and unhappy being in Bulgaria, a backward Eastern European country far away from the Mississippi. Katherine McNamara was a poor choice as Becky Thatcher, and the rest of the casting was a mess, not least an insipid Injun Joe. The 2011 German language "Tom Sawyer" film is infinitely more enjoyable, even with the language barrier, and if you want a highly watchable and authentic telling of "Tom Sawyer", the 1938 film starring Tommy Kelly holds up very well, as does the semi-musical version from 1973 starring Johnny Whitaker. In short, avoid this German/Bulgarian disaster movie like you would food poisoning.

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.

Slow. Weak. Choppy. Terrible directing. My kids are forever going to hate Tom Sawyer as this was their first exposure. The characters are so boring! No fun. No fun at all...

maybe, it is not the most inspired adaptation. but it is nice, seductive, cool and funny. and after so many adaptation, front to high expectations, it has the great virtue to be good occasion to remind the atmosphere of a classic. only sin - Val Kilmer as Mark Twain. too much make-up and a too strange performance. but that is only a small detail. an easy film who has the flavor of classic novel. and that is enough for good entertainment. inspired option for the lead characters for the image level, decent performances, beautiful images. and a film not for high expectations but for fun. version for a new generation, it preserves the spirit of original work. and that fact is real important. the others - only few details.

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.

While Tom Sawyer was a hymn to Boyhood per Mark Twaim Himself, this film extrapolates and lays bare the themes buried in both novels,Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn from the point if the protagonists were older teens and thereby appreciated more fully the folly and darkness of what they are going through.

Wish they hadn't so quickly glossed over Hucks story though. Gritty with the most honest portrayal of what life back then would have looked abd felt like. Strong character portrayal be all performers..particularly like Injun Joe..fleshed out into a 3 dimensional person fir first time. As a Twain scholar, I feel confident Sam Clemens would approve of this version. BIg goof though was that the body that was being robbed was that of Hoss Williams, not Ross Williams as now mistakenly in movie and even written on plank tombstone. Choice of European location to better reflect rural nature of town and more importantly, wide open Mississippi River of back than.was smart. Jim Hagerty.

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!

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.

Oh gosh, it can't get worse than that. I wanted to show this movie to my son after reading with him the book, it was supposed to be a treat for us. How disappointing, I can't express enough. Why are the boys played by grown up lads, whose eyes can't merely express a joy of 12/13 years olds? The Heg couldn't smile through the whole movie, was it painful for him to play in it? Such poor production, I am actually shocked. I went to google to see if anyone thinks the same or there's something wrong with me? How frustrating to pay money for watching that. Such primitive depiction of a wonderful world of Mark Twain.

I just started watching the movie, but the first 6 minutes already made me want to write a review about this. This is the first movie review i am posting here, so please be kind.

I am a huge fan of Tom Sawyer, i have read the books as a child, and i have always imagined how things would look like if it was in a movie.

The thing that made me want to write this review was seeing Huckleberry Finn smoking the pipe. This was EXACTLY as i pictured him when i was reading the books. I also like the Becky actress a lot, and the kid playing Tom seems to be a pretty damn good portrayal of the Tom i always imagined.

I just hope i can edit this as i watch the movie, and i hope the movie will rise to my expectations but still, after the first 5 minutes i wanted to write this.