The Old Man and the Sea (1990 TV Movie) User Reviews

Excellent TV Adaptation

[mstomaso · 8/10 · 23 September 2008]

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.

Serviceable Version of the Hemingway Classic

[l_rawjalaurence · 7/10 · 26 July 2013]

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.

A second effort at an American classic

[SimonJack · 7/10 · 21 August 2012]

This 1990 TV movie is the second effort to put "The Old Man and the Sea" on film. The novel won Ernest Hemingway a Pulitzer Prize in 1953, and was cited in his award of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1954. The first film was made by Warner Brothers in 1958. But this time around, "Papa" Hemingway wasn't around to advise or have a hand in the production.

So, the script departs somewhat from the book, and the writers employed a new twist. They put a couple in the film that is not in the book, and the man is an author on vacation in Cuba – supposedly based on Hemingway. After having car trouble, the author decides to hang around the small village for inspiration. He sees the fishermen come in and hears about the bad luck of the old man – 84 days straight without catching a thing. He sees the adulation that a young boy has for the old man, and the old man's stubborn perseverance in going out after fish.

With this new twist, the movie switches between the couple and the old man and boy. Maybe the producers thought this would hold viewers' attention or interest more, but I think the scenes with the author and his wife are much too long with so little action or discussion. They may be the biggest reason some reviewers were bored watching this movie. Whereas, the scenes of the old man in the boat, talking to himself and the fish, are close to the novel and give us the sense of the adventure and challenge that Hemingway put down on paper.

Unfortunately, there isn't enough of the book's analogous and poetic prose describing the sunset, the sea, the sky and the ocean and its life. The first film, with Spencer Tracy, had some beautiful lines lifted right out of the book.

I think that Anthony Quinn looked a little more the part of an old fisherman than did Spencer Tracy. And Quinn's beat-up hat and more worn and torn clothing seemed to fit a little better the idea of a poor old fisherman. The one drawback in Quinn's character seemed to me to be his overly stern and serious expression most of the time. The book reads – and the Tracy character in the first film – portrays Santiago as a somewhat tired man, but a man of patience in his determination. And therefore, with a somewhat laid back demeanor about his poor luck. "It will change tomorrow, and all will be well with the world then," seems to be his attitude. But Quinn's character seems almost distraught at his poor luck. Quinn needed a little touch of Zorba the Greek in his portrayal of this character.

While the sets, scenes and photography overall are good in this film too, the movie doesn't have the rich colors or spacious scenes that the original had. As with the first film, the change in seas is very noticeable here – from near calm fishing and being pulled in the boat, to sizable swells and waves in the scenes with the fish jumping. And, some other small details are missing that Hemingway mentioned in his book, or that are understood about the culture.

This is worth a watch, and if you haven't seen the 1958 film, by all means watch it too. One can wonder what a film would have been like with Anthony Quinn playing the old man based on the character, direction and script of the first movie.

The movie was better than the book!

[Badgirl99124 · 6 December 2004]

WARNING!! This is a spoiler!

I'm a 9th grader and as a class we read and saw the movie The Old Man in the Sea. The old man never gives up so you have to be ready to go in his adventures in fishing. His adventures are not that interesting but he never gave up. He knew that some day he was going to catch a fish. The book was not interesting but the movie was interesting. In the movie the old man promises his wife that he was always going to go fishing on his skiff. If you watched the movie you will see that he never breaks his promise. It looked like that old man was real in love with his wife and was willing to do anything to stay with her. But, we still don't know what happened with her we don't know if she died or if she still alive. In the book the old man doesn't have a daughter and in the movies he does. His daughter was always trying to get him to live with her but he never wanted to. The old man needs a woman in his life because the old man looks to dirty. Even though he thinks that he can make it like that I don't think he can. The old man is sick he needs someone to take care of him. Even though he knows that he sick he still refuses to move with his daughter. The old man had a little friend named Manolin that was always there for him. The little boy is like 10 years old in the movie but he is real helpful to the old man. The old man and the little boy were fans of the Yankees and that never changed. Their favorite player was DiMaggio. He was a great player back in the day. They both had faith in the Yankees they knew that the Yankees wasn't going to let them down. At the end the old man catches a fish reaching his goal. He was trying to catch a fish for over 84 days and he never gave up. The old man reached his goal without a problem. While he was out there getting a fish people thought that he was dead or something had happened to him. He was thinking about the day he got married with his wife. The old man never broke his promise and that's what I really like about him in the story. Most of the guys in the book that never talked to him would have given up but he didn't. He kept going until he reached his goal and most men wouldn't be able to do what he did. If you want to know more I suggest you watch the movie because it's better than the book.

sea sick?

[cmiller-38 · 7/10 · 28 November 2005]

The old man and the sea is a film that seemed to portray a man's meaning for existence. The old man has not caught a fish for 84 days but stubbornly persists in his occupation. What other job could he do? Work gives him purpose. He does not want to go to the city and lay about listening to baseball, even though that is his favorite thing to think about. It is his struggle to be seen as strong and successful as he was in the past. He is trying to live up to his former glory. The other fishermen despise him for it and his daughter criticizes him for it as well. The only one who believes in him is his boy helper whom he seemed to mentor since he was five. The old man should retire in glory after battling a monster marlin for two days with little water and food, getting knocked about with head injuries,getting cut, and also fending off sharks from his fish. It should have ended with him collapsing on the beach not to get up again. He won the biggest arm wrestling match ever. The young couple are drawn to this old man and have to see if this old fisherman can overcome his days of despair. He did and that was something to write about.

they say i'm old and week so i must prove the wrong.

[dffdf2000 · 6/10 · 12 November 2004]

WARNING: spoiler

The movie, The Old Man and the Sea, was a bit boring. I watched the movie after I read the book in class. The book was good, but the movie wasn't, they added the most boring parts and skip some of the interesting parts. They added another character, who is his daughter. She was trying to get him to come and live with her, but he insisted on staying where he is. And the dreams about the lions on the beach were cut out of the movie, and there were not as much drama as in the book about what happened in the movie. It's a story about this old fisherman who hasn't caught a fish in a long time, so the others say that he has bad luck but he disagrees and there is a boy that believes in him, but can't fish with him because his parents say that he is not to because of the bad luck, they also say that he is old and weak. So to prove them wrong he has to catch a fish, a really big fish. So he sets out to sea farther out than anybody else, and sets his lines and waits for his first catch that was a tuna his second. Later he saw the line tug, so he grabs it and it starts to pull him far out in the sea. After a while of dragging the fish he gets tired and starts to come up from under the water. And then he saw what the fish was, it was a marlin, it was bigger than anything he had ever seen, and the fish continues to pull the boat suddenly it tugs the line, and the line cuts the old man. Later, the old man sees the fish slowing down, so he pulls the fish in slowly and then readies the harpoon but I won't tell you the end. I liked it, but don't take my word for it.

It was a good effort - - -but

[lmiller_10 · 4/10 · 21 April 2005]

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

Anthony Quinn brings the story to life

[Bernie4444 · 10/10 · 8 January 2024]

The Ernest Hemmingway story is too short to go into detail without revealing the surprises; however, it is about (you guessed it) an old fisherman, who should be over the hill, going out to sea from Cuba to catch fish. He has 84 days of bad luck and with any luck, this is about to change (or is it?)

While the book can drag and be a tad redundant; this film adaptation puts life into the story. It is almost as if the story was written for Quinn. I have no intention of calling this a remake.

Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death (1989) requested his part as a birthday present (he's 75th) from his producer.

Anthony Quinn ... Santiago Gary Cole ... Tom Pruitt Patricia Clarkson ... Mary Pruitt Joe Santos ... Lopez Valentina Quinn ... Angela Francesco Quinn ... Santiago as a Young Man Paul Calderon ... Anderez

Notice a few more Quinn's?

Not my cup of tea

[HotToastyRag · 2/10 · 8 June 2018]

If I weren't honoring Anthony Quinn as Hot Toasty Rag's Star of the Week, I never would have sat through The Old Man and the Sea. As it was, I had to give myself a manicure and a pedicure while watching it just to save my sanity by not giving the movie my full attention.

I'm not really a Hemingway fan anyway, and this story is far from my favorite. In it, an old man goes out to sea to try and catch a fish, even though everyone tells him he's too old. He's out there for months, waiting to catch a fish, talking to himself and annoying the pants off the audience. As a side plot, that I supposed was written to help audiences not start screaming-but for me, it had the opposite effect-Gary Cole and Patricia Clarkson are on-again, off-again lovers in town who sometimes talk about Anthony Quinn's futile boat trip but mostly talk about their very boring struggle between needing to find themselves and wanting to stay together. Gary just didn't know what to do with the terrible lines he was given, and Patricia did her usual delivery of, "In using an annoying monotone, I'm actually showing how profound these words are." Then of course, there's the young boy, Alexis Cruz, who idolizes and believes in Anthony Quinn, even though he really has no reason to.

If you actually like this story, feel free to disregard my review. Perhaps this is a very well done version, but since I can't stand it, it drove me crazy. I didn't like Moby Dick either. I preferred All is Lost. There's much better acting, hardly any talking, and no irritating side plots.

A movie so boring I almost cried

[kite288 · 12 November 2004]

The 1990 version of The Old Man and the Sea is a movie you shouldn't see if you didn't read the book. I watched this movie in my high school English class, and I actually found the book pretty good. When I watched the movie I was really disappointed in what I saw. It had poor graphic quality and most of the cast acted very badly. This movie made me lose all my interest in the book. WARNING SPOLLERS!!! The movie was similar to the book in the way that it put everything in order from beginning to end, with very few things changed. But the main part that was changed is that in the movie Ernest Hemingway's character was in it. He played his role but he was pathetic and ever so false. To me the only character that acted like he was supposed to was Anthony Quinn, but everyone else really sucked. This movie, though similar to the book was very stupid in my opinion. If you are planning to show it for class I recommend that you don't. In all honesty I enjoyed reading the book more than I did watch the movie. It was so boring I almost cried. I wish it wasn't true but the acting just put me to sleep. It was really old fashion and it looked really false. If you were hoping to watch this movie for clarifications, don't, it will just get you really lost. Feel free to watch the movie and disprove me if you want this is just my own opinion. But if you're disappointed at what you see don't say I didn't warn you. I give this movie 3 out of 10. Read the book it's a lot better than the movie.

Old Man and the Sea

[bscheible-56468 · 9/10 · 6 January 2023]

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.

This movie was really bad

[entei_3000 · 2/10 · 12 November 2004]

WARNING: SPOILERS! Me and my 9th grade English class watched The Old Man and the Sea movie after reading the book. Overall, I think this movie was pretty bad. The movie was different from the book because there were new characters, Santiago's daughter, who wanted him to live with her and she didn't even try to have an accent. The other main characters were Earnest Hemingway, not played by him, and his wife. Having Hemingway in this story was an interesting idea, but all of the scenes with him are either parts from the book modified to have him in it, without really changing them, or really boring, which just makes it longer and makes it take more time to get to the interesting part, when he catches the marlin. Also, they left out the part where he caught the dolphin, so, in the movie, he was out there for days and he never ate. The new parts did not add to the story at all, except for taking up time. Seriously, I could hardly stay awake while watching it, and I have never fallen asleep in class.

The movie did not help me imagine or understand the story any better because it didn't look like how I imagined it would look. It was also really fake looking, when he saw the giant marlin, it didn't look all that big, and also, it was just a movie on a green screen and it looked like the fishing line went through the marlin at one time. When the marlin was strapped to the side of the boat it was the same size as the boat and the book said it was a few feet longer than his boat and it looked like it was made of rubber. When it was dark it looked like he was in a boat in the middle of nowhere. The movie was also less interesting because it did not say what he was thinking, so you didn't feel as attached to him, and a lot of the stuff he thought was important or interesting. 3/10 stars.

Movie enjoyable

[elyria106 · 6 December 2004]

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.

It's okay if you like that kind of thing

[caseychaseme · 12 November 2004]

I had to watch this movie in high school as an assignment and I thought the movie 'The Old Man and the Sea' was a pretty good movie. It seems like other people really don't like the movie. People find it boring and stupid and hate the dialog. I admit the dialog wasn't too good if you actually listen to it. And even though I nearly fell asleep while I was watching the movie, it didn't look like a horrible movie.

They changed a few things from the version of the book I read because they gave the old man a daughter and didn't say anything about the lions on the beach. And I didn't really understand Ernest Hemingway's part in the movie except that he was there. It didn't make sense on how much the old man kept talking to himself and the fish and the birds and whatever else he spoke to.

I'm not going to try and spoil the movie but I can tell you about how he went out to sea and hooked a marlin. Then came the boring parts. Then there was bleeding, struggling, cramping, hurting, eating, killing and guilt. If you watch the movie, you might see what I mean. Overall the movie was good. But I kind of had my eyes closed so I don't have any detailed parts. But my eyes were open enough to tell you the movie. That is if you like fishing, sharks and crazy old men and I'm guessing that no one likes that stuff.

I don't think I said too much to tell you the whole movie and spoil everything but if you did want to know the movie, read someone else's comments.

The book is better than the movie

[chanel_cranford · 12 November 2004]

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.

This really stinks!!!!!!!!

[Gtbhai13 · 12 November 2004]

CAUTION: This is a spoiler warning do not read this if you did not see

the movie!!

I really did not like the movie because it was not really reliable to the story. We read the story just before we saw the movie. It left out a lot of things for example, in the book the old man dreamed about lions and now he is dreaming about his wedding and his childhood. Also, in the book there is nothing about his daughter and in the movie there is a girl who is his daughter. The movie not also good because the Santiago did not have the Cuban accent it was to white of an accent. In the book a lot of things happen and the person who produced the movie left almost everything out. Then when my class and I were watching the movie I almost fell asleep because it was so boring. Then the teacher told us we had to vote at IMDb.com I rated it a 1 because it was not good to me. You might object to my opinion but if you have another one you should post it on the web sit and I would read it. I would not have watched it but since it was at school I had no other choice but to watch it. Some of my classmates did not like the movie and I think they did not like it for the same reason I did not like it for. I think the director just put the movie in his own words because some of the things like I said did not even fit in to the book so if you only saw the movie and then read the book you might think the book is not reliable to the movie and if you read the book and then saw the movie you might think differently.

Go to sleep!!!!

[bebamaria2004 · 12 November 2004]

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.

read the book first

[shadowx2302 · 12 November 2004]

I watched the Old Man and the Sea at school for English and I thought it was okay. The plot seems real enough but there is fault in the characters. I read the book and expected that they would make changes, so finding that the old man had a daughter was not a shock to me, but her bad acting contributed to reason this movie was not such a hit. Also Santiago was supposed to be Cuban yet this actor's accent was horrible and he wasn't Cuban. I even heard that he was a famous actor back then and that is why he got the part. Some of the flashbacks were also not in the book which I understand but some had nothing to do with the plot of the story. Santiago was supposed to dream of lions on the beach but instead he dreams of his youth. There were also some good points though, the actor who played Santiago was very good and so was the boy also adding the author of the book into the movie was genius. The big blue marlin at some point looked fake, and the background of the sea, also fake. The scenery of the beach was beautiful though, and it kind of reminded me of my home country. In book and movie, Santiago shows the endurance courage and compassion for the fishes he catches and that is probably what drew people to watch it the first time but know it is not all that popular anymore and would not be a good choice to pick if you wanted to see a good movie. For ratings I would give this movie a four out of ten for good effort even though it really did suck.

Avoid This At All Costs!!!

[Chucu1989 · 12 November 2004]

Caution: This is a definite Spoiler Warning to anyone who has not read the book!!!! I liked the movie a little bit. It was a possible 1. But they took away a lot of interesting things in the story. I wanted to see the lions on the beach, not his wedding and his childhood. The marlin bones looked like paper. The acting of Quinn was making me laugh out loud because it was so melodramatic. People who have seen marlin know that it was the marlin was a fake. They put Ernest Hemingway in for no reason. He never talks to Santiago at all throughout the whole movie. They kept going to Hemingway and his wife for no reason; I don't want to see his childhood.

This really bothers me, his daughter in the movie is his daughter in real life and she looks like a man, and her acting is really bad. The person who is supposed to be him in the flashback is his son. Why did they do that? Do they not have enough money to use real actors besides Anthony Quinn? They acted so bad that the whole class laughed at it through the whole movie. They really shouldn't stop between every little thing because it distracts us from the movie. The only thing I liked was that they used a people who looked Cuban. The new parts add nothing to the understanding. It does not help me imagine the story better; I had a much better idea on what it would be like. Nothing like what I thought it would be. Now what I give the movie is a low, low, low rating, I give this sorry movie a 0.1. The point one is because they used authentic people for the movie. The rest is just bad. Well, that's the end of my review.

Pretty Good but a few problems

[docterd262004 · 12 November 2004]

WARNING!!! SPOILERS!!! I have seen this movie and well it isn't the best movie but it was pretty good. I also read the book and there are lots of differences. The book and the movie starts off as Santiago not catching a fish for 85, or so, days. But his luck is about to change. The characters are different and some of the conflicts are different because there is a part of the book where Santiago starts talking to the sea gull. They tooked that part it out of the movie maybe because they couldn't get the bird to land. But the movie was pretty good at making the scenes look pretty good because there are lots of movies that look really fake. The movie was kind of different from the book because in the book Santiago had dreams of lions on the beach and in the movie, Santiago had just flash backs about when he was getting. The only flash back that they had in the book and in the movie was the arm wrestling match back when he was young. Also in the movie, Santiago had a sister that was living in the city, and in the book, Santiago was lonely other then the boy that was with him all the time. The boy in the book was named Manolin but in the movie, it was Manalo (I think). But the only fake part in the movie was when the sharks had eaten the marlin. At first the marlin only had pieces of the body taken off and then when Santiago was heading towards the shore, the marlin's bones were the only thing showing and his head. The bones look like pieces of cardboard sticking out. The new parts of the movie such as the sister did kind had meaning to the book because in the book, he was lonely, and in the movie the sister didn't do anything to try to help him. So it's like Santiago was lonely. The movie did help me understand the book better because at first I thought that Santiago was only fishing with a piece of the fishing line, but he did use a bamboo stick as a fishing rod. (Even though it didn't make a different because he still cut his hand).

okay!

[denashiam · 12 November 2004]

Warning some spoilers below!!!!

I've read the book, The Old Man and the Sea, and the movie wasn't exactly the same as the book, but the movie was very similar. The old man and the Sea is a classic book and many of you may have read it. The movie did cover almost every detail the book had, but it added its own touch to the movie. For one, the old man didn't have a daughter in the story or was the family even mentioned. The actress who played the daughter wasn't a very good actress. She didn't even add anything to the outline of the story. There was no point in her being in the movie at all. The old man and the sea movie wasn't a movie I would go out to see in the movie theater. It was port of an assignment in my reading class, but overall it was okay. The actor who played the old man did an excellent job in portraying the man and his adventures. To me, the story was kind of better in the sense of length because it really stressed the situations. The movie made it seem as if everything happened in a matter of 2 days, but the book made it seem as if the adventures lasted maybe a week. The part where he's catching the marlin tool like 5 minutes and the book said that it took days for him to catch the fish. The book and the story were good and if you like educational movies; this is the one for you. But, if you are like me don't watch it unless you have to. I rate the movie a 7 out of 10 because it was okay, but it wasn't all that.

I got BORED while watching this!!

[pdtitan · 12 November 2004]

WARNING SPOILER!!!

My movie review is on the 'The Old Man and the Sea' the 1990 version. I didn't like this movie at all. It is boring and did not have that, much action in it. The movie added new events in the story, and took away some parts from the novel. The things they added to the movie were things they didn't even need in the movie. For example, they did not need Santiago's daughter in the movie, especially if she wasn't part of the book. Another character that was not part of the book was the writer. He didn't even do that much in the movie, so what was the point if having him part of the movie. Also they added him and his wife getting married instead. They should have just followed the novel. Those were the things that I think they shouldn't have added to the movie. The events that were in the novel but were not in the movie was when Santiago dreams. In the novel he used to dream about lions, not his wife and him getting married. I thought they were going to show lions in the movie but it had no part to it made me angry. The new parts in the movie had nothing to do with the main plot of the novel, so they shouldn't have even put them in the movie. The movie did help me imagine the story better, since the movie was so garbage it made me like the story even better. The movie made me imagine the story even better than I used to. The little boy and Santiago were very good actors. I liked the story way better than I liked the movie. That's my movie review for 'The Old Man and the Sea'.

A movie for a waste of time.

[MigVazquez · 12 November 2004]

WARNING…THIS MIGHT BE A SPOILER! I think that the movie that my class saw in school was very boring and it sucked because the director added new characters to the movie like the old man's daughter, and Ernest Hemingway. The old man's daughter sucked because she didn't even try to sound likes she had an accent and she looked too white to be Cuban. It was boring because it was about how Ernest came up to write the book. It was partly confusing with the new character; they made the meaning of the story worst and made it harder for you to find the meaning of the movie. Our class also read the book before seeing the movie and even though the book was boring the movie was worse. If you see the movie after reading the book you might like it if you liked the book, but if you didn't like the book, don't see the movie because it is going to be a waste of time and it won't help at all in creating images in your head. In the movie the old man looks stupid when he is out in the sea fishing for the marlin and he talks to the birds flying around and to himself. The movie was not that different from the book, they only added some new things but it did not help at all adding the parts because Ernest was in the movie writing the Old Man and The Sea. The end was crappie because the old man did not sleep and the marlin, that piece of crap didn't even look real, it looked like a plastic big fish. The old man kept talking to the boy and in the movie he didn't even talk about DiMaggio. So I'm warning you don't waste your time watching this crappie movie.

No Stars

[dakiid4 · 6 December 2004]

Warning: This may be a spoiler.

I think that The Old man and The Sea is not a good movie. I thought that this was very boring and not very interesting. The book was way much better then the movie ever was. In the movie the old man was very stupid and the boy Manolin's voice was very annoying and not pleasurable. But I felt his love for the old man and his pain and passion. That I felt from the book. But everything else lacked credibility. When he got the fish it looked so fake because the boat was half way up and the fish was all the way down. The marlin looked plastic and rubber and very fake. I thought they dragged out the movie and made it too long. In the book he didn't have a daughter and they could at least made the daughter nicer and not look like a man. I thought she was very mean and didn't care about her daddy. But the movie was very boring and I didn't enjoy it one bit. I thought they could of made the movie much better and made it like the book. So I give the movie no star because it was not interesting.

This Movie is boring!!!!!!!!!!!

[madkeithdog · 12 November 2004]

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