The Old Man and the Sea

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.

Anthony Quinn makes a much better Santiago than Spencer Tracey did, and director Jud Taylor and screenwriter Roger Hirson manage to make the right decisions regarding editing and plot, distilling Hemingway's simple, powerful, story to its fundamental human elements and adding elements of characterization which a more 'faithful' adaptation would have missed.

It is remarkable that this film was made for television broadcast. It sports a cast and a pedigree well above the typical TV movie of its time, and - with a little more budget - would have made a fine big screen film.

Santiago is an old man in a small fishing village in Cuba. Some of the local men feel that his failure to catch fish for the last 84 days has brought a curse on the village, and they long for his retirement. Others, including Santiago himself, simply believe that he has had a run of bad luck. Inspired by a young man who worships the kindly old fishermen, a respectful innkeeper, and indirectly, by the sympathetic sentiments of a foreign writer (Tom Pruitt played by Gary Cole) staying in the village, Santiago begins what may be his final voyage out to sea, in search of a big catch.

Hemingway's story is one of many where the great writer expounds on his unusually sensitive and intelligent views of masculine ideals. In this adaptation of The Old Man and the Sea, however, Hemingway's tendency to diminish female roles in order to make room for men - thankfully - does not come through. Instead, the production team decided to add relationships (such as Santiago and his daughter) which nicely embellish the development of the central character as a passionately independent man who nonetheless loves those around him despite their refusal to understand him (except for his protégé, the young fisherman). The film also nicely touches on issues of aging.

Tom Pruitt (Gary Cole), is - basically - Hemingway. And this character interprets the old man for us, but subtly, and only as he learns from the example the old man sets - never as an omniscient god-figure who creates and sees clearly. As such, Pruitt and his lover (Patricia Clarkson) reveal something intimate about Hemingway's famously tortured relationship with his craft.

The story is shot and edited exactly as it should have been, and the feeling of Hemingway's story is much better developed than in the previous Oscar winning Spencer Tracey version. This is true despite the fact that Taylor's film strays much further from the original Hemingway story.

The film depicts a man struggling with the sea, a crisis of self-confidence, and accusations of uselessness - but who never once loses sight of his prospects and inner strength. The dignity of the character is very admirable, and Anthony Quinn's performance is mesmerizing. Quinn pours his soul into Santiago - and it is clear that the great actor understood his character perfectly. Excellent support is provided by Patricia Clarkson and a very good but largely unknown Latin American cast) Unfortunately, Gary Cole's portrayal of Hemingway is not one of his better efforts and some of his scenes are unconvincing.

Recommended for Hemingway and Quinn fans - but not for purists. Recommended for patient fans of human drama. Not recommended for people with limited attention spans.

This was not a film worthy of Tony Quinn. It pales when compared with the Spencer Tracy version. The Quinn effort did not follow the book except a little. People were brought in for some unknown reason who were not in the book and didn't add anything to the story line. The original was a LOT better and followed the book almost to the letter. I realize that the original version was become hard to find, but I bet a look on ebay, Google, or Amazon would turn up a copy. I think that you would really enjoy it. I have a copy of the original Spenser Tracy version and plan to watch it with the book in hand to see how close it is to the book

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.

We watched The Old Man in the sea in English I really did like the movie. There were a lot of good parts. For example when the sharks started attacking the marlin and Santiago was defending the marlin. The book was really different movie because in the movie he had a daughter and the book didn't. There were some parts that were like told over and over again. Also some of the scenes really looked fake like when the marlin jumped out and when the sharks attacked. Also when the sharks came it looked like it was cut out of another movie and put in. But other wise it was really good and there was scenes of Cuba and those were really good parts. Comparing them both I liked the book because it was really detailed and interesting. Also when there was shark coming they said that he caught it but he really didn't. I have seen a lot of parts in the story that were put into the movie. It was really suspenseful at times like when he was attacking the sharks and when he trying to catch the marlin. At times it was really boring and then like after awhile it got rally good again. Over all I thought it was really good, but it was really short and that at the end it didn't make senses. It should have gone on longer then it would make a lot more sense. I would've liked to see when he went to see his grandchildren and how life went for him after the two day journey. I think that people would enjoy it better and people would gave the movie a lot more stars. Over all I would give this movie 6 stars because the way the move came out.

madkeithdog