The Old Man and the Sea

Not much actually happens in this movie: an old man Santiago (Anthony Quinn) has not caught a fish in over eighty trips, goes out for one last trip and catches a huge fish. By doing so, he discovers, perhaps for the first time, the insignificance of human beings in the overall scheme of things. It is a testament to Anthony Quinn's performance in the central role that our interest is sustained; his range of facial expressions is positively wondrous, especially when alone on the boat with no one but himself to talk to. Director Jud Taylor also works hard to develop the spring-and-autumn relationship between Santiago and the boy Anderez (Paul Calderon), which prompts the old man to consider his own behavior as an old men when he believed that he was virtually impregnable. The story has a Hemingwayesque figure in the form of Tom Pruitt (Gary Cole), a writer who cannot leave Santiago's small community until he has discovered for himself just what motivates the old man. This role is a little superfluous, but at least shows why the author himself was interested in such an apparently insignificant story.

I saw the movie The Old Man and the Sea in school after my class read the book. I did not really like the movie because some of the actors couldn't act at all. For example, the woman that played Angela was a bad actress that made the movie look even worse than it already was. The woman Angela also looked a lot like a man instead of a woman. The movie was very different from the book because the movie was way shorter. In the book the old man Santiago didn't have a daughter but in the movie he did. Ernest Hemingway was not mentioned in the book as an actor. In the story it was sad when Santiago arrived back on land and he went to his shack; the boy come to the shack to see if he had arrived back home. But then again in the movie Santiago arrived in his boat with the fish tied to the side and people were gathering around and telling him what a magnificent fish he caught. The islanders then said that all of his bad luck was gone because he had caught such a fish in the 85th day. During the movie parts were missing that should have been there. That just made me not like the movie that much more. The new parts added to the movie didn't add to the meaning of the story because it had kind of the same meaning even without the new parts. In a way the movie kind of helped me understand the book a little better because I got to really get a good picture of all the surroundings and the feel of the book. For some parts of the book that was hard for me to picture in my head I was able to understand what the book was trying to explain and make me see.

You might have heard of the movie or story call 'The Old Man and the Sea'. I read and saw the movie in high school. The book was all right but it had different things from the movie. I personally didn't like the movie because I think that is was boring and that it didn't have as much detail as the book had. Another reason why I didn't like the movie was because the effects here kind of dumb. The movie was different from the book because in the book the author includes a lot of details that the movie never had. For example in the book, Santiago was really fighting for the fish, in the movie it look so easy. The movie would be better if it had more details. Another is that Santiago never had a daughter, in the movie he did and she was a real bad character. I think she doesn't know how to act good because of the things she said and do. Another thing was that in the movie the old man thinks back of his wife. In the book he didn't really had no family only the boy. The new things didn't mean anything because the daughter was just like any friend to him she didn't believe on him like the boy did. For the wife I think it was nothing because I think he didn't care for her like he cares for the boy. The movie helps a little but I think that with more detail and taking out the new parts will help a lot. Well this is all I could really tell you. I think that from a 1 to 10 I will give like a 4. Another thing I want to tell you is that it will be better to read the book.

I never read the book until I was in my 60's. Hemingway did an excellent writing of the book. I next watched the 1990 version of the movie with Anthony Quinn. He did a fantastic job along with the writers. Books and movies aren't made like these classics. If you haven't read the book, or even watched the 1990 version or the 60's version with Spencer Tracy, you should treat yourself to it. I also have listened to the audiobook version with Donald Sutherland as narrator. I believe the 1990 version with Quinn is the more realistic version since he is Mexican-American and his version is more like Hemingway's Old Man. Treat yourself with this book/movie.

Warning: Movie Details revealed:

I'm a freshmen student who watched the movie Old Man And The Sea I think the movie's graphics weren't all that good. The plot was good, but the graphics were horrible. Every thing looked fake, especially the marlin. Other than that the movie was good. They didn't make many changes, and the changes they did make, made the movie better not worse. The actors did their job pretty good and they were convincing. For example when the old man was out to sea looking for the fish and talking to himself he was saying things with a lot of feeling. Or the part when he was saying that he had to kill the fish even though he loved it and respected it. Then when he was asking himself if it was right to kill the fish he put enough real emotion in there to convince the person watching that he was actually there. The actors looked like I imagined they would look. Except one, the daughter Angela. They stuck to the book and how they said stuff and what they said so it was actually a good book in terms of the plot, if you can get over the fake graphics than it's a fairly good movie.