I recently watched The Pearl in my seventh grade English class, and unfortunately most of my class disliked it. I personally thought movie wasn't very pleasing , but t a few tweaks here and there, could make this movie at least pleasing. The first thing that I disliked about the movie was the fact that the scriptwriter changed the ending. In the book, Coyotito died at the end leaving Kino and Juana devastated, but in the movie Coyotito doesn't die and they are all rather happy after the pearl. If the script writers wanted to change the way that the movie ended they should have made the beginning of the movie very good, but with the budget they had it was nearly impossible to make a good beginning, so the fact that the beginning wasn't good and the fact that they changed the ending of the movie really infuriated me. Another thing that made this movie seem like a joke was the fact that the special effects were very realistic, causing me and my classmates to laugh even though the scene was meant to be very serious. This problem could have been prevented if the producers of a higher budget, and honestly I think if the movie had a higher budget many of these problems could have been prevented , thus resulting in a better movie. if anyone is planning on re-creating The Pearl, please keep these things in mind.
18 Reviews
Review
gabbig_12314 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Over time, I've seen a lot of movies that weren't so professionally filmed, or that lacked some thoughtful idea in the plot. But this movie is an entirely different story. In English class at school, I watched this movie with the class after reading the short novel by John Steinbeck. And what a shame to John Steinbeck! The novel that he wrote was beautifully descriptive, with each of the five senses satisfied, and had many deep truths within the story, the mood that was shared between all figures during each scene, or each moment that people in the story shower, the mood that was shared between all figures during each scene, during each moment in their life. In the novel, the reader can feel like they themselves are a part of the book, as if they were standing in front of the ocean, watching Kino the pearl diver and his friends celebrate, or under a small bush, listening closely for the trackers who were coming on their way. It showed to the reader every detail, depicted every scene that the movie should have expressed in a newer, clearer way. Filmmakers can use pictures to literally express the thoughts, ideas, feelings that were in the villagers' minds, showing to the viewer exactly how another person had imagined it to look like before. However, Alfredo Zacharias, the director of the movie, fails to do so, because he most likely didn't capture the emotional points in the story when he was reviewing the novel himself. In the book, the mysteriously magical, yet evil pearl puts in shock the villagers, with a radiating beauty emulating throughout its center. The Pearl of World in the movie, is depicted as a computer-generated hunk of rubber the size of a golf ball that glows like it's got a flashlight inside of it. Really? Watching a film with a novelistic counterpart, viewers should say, "That's exactly how I imagined Kino and Juana to look!" None of the actors were really what viewers had hoped to see or who they imagined the characters to look like. No one in the movie did the movie did their best job. I really don't think the director and his filming crew did their best job on this movie or tried hard enough for this movie to succeed. Nothing in the film was even close to the splendorous novel that John Steinbeck wrote at all. This movie was a true disappointment. ):
This is A HORRIBLE MOVIE
johnny2093915 February 2012
Dear Mr. Zacharias,
Hi! My name is Johnny Sun. I highly respect your work sir, but you put the original, award winning novel The Pearl to shame. The book is known for it's remarkable lessons, and vivid details in which your movie seemed to lack. Your movie had absolutely none of the examples in which he was transforming into an animal. This was one of the most important reasons in the book explaining how greed will lead you to another side of you that awakens when you become selfish and self centered. Another reason that your movie was missing, is the knife he had from the beginning and the one he had encountered on his adventure. In your movie, out of nowhere he gets this long, sharp, and not to mention deadly machete which had taken the place of his working tool. In the book he had a regular knife to open up pearls which was a working tool that signified and complimented Kino's personality and nature. Later on, he upgrades to a machete which signified his inner personality and how the transformation was taking place. Finally, in the end the baby did not die. As much as this pains me to say, the baby should have, no, needed to die. Without the baby's death Kino would not have had a change of heart and an understanding of human nature. Also without the baby's death there would have been absolutely no point in throwing away the pearl. Mr. Zacharias, this movie is not worth 8 million dollars of funding. Many readers of the pearly would agree with me that the movie is terrible, right about now I am beginning to question if you read the book at all or heard a horrible summary from a close friend or family member. Overall this movie was very dissatisfying to readers like me. I hope that this letter has enlightened you and changed your idea about a good movie based on a spectacular book
With Hope,
Johnny Sun
Hi! My name is Johnny Sun. I highly respect your work sir, but you put the original, award winning novel The Pearl to shame. The book is known for it's remarkable lessons, and vivid details in which your movie seemed to lack. Your movie had absolutely none of the examples in which he was transforming into an animal. This was one of the most important reasons in the book explaining how greed will lead you to another side of you that awakens when you become selfish and self centered. Another reason that your movie was missing, is the knife he had from the beginning and the one he had encountered on his adventure. In your movie, out of nowhere he gets this long, sharp, and not to mention deadly machete which had taken the place of his working tool. In the book he had a regular knife to open up pearls which was a working tool that signified and complimented Kino's personality and nature. Later on, he upgrades to a machete which signified his inner personality and how the transformation was taking place. Finally, in the end the baby did not die. As much as this pains me to say, the baby should have, no, needed to die. Without the baby's death Kino would not have had a change of heart and an understanding of human nature. Also without the baby's death there would have been absolutely no point in throwing away the pearl. Mr. Zacharias, this movie is not worth 8 million dollars of funding. Many readers of the pearly would agree with me that the movie is terrible, right about now I am beginning to question if you read the book at all or heard a horrible summary from a close friend or family member. Overall this movie was very dissatisfying to readers like me. I hope that this letter has enlightened you and changed your idea about a good movie based on a spectacular book
With Hope,
Johnny Sun
This is NOT John Steinbeck's "The Pearl."
dudeky25 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is NOT John Steinbeck's "The Pearl."
I am an English teacher and The Pearl is part of the Freshmen curriculum. I was excited to see "The Pearl" available from a mass retailer for a reasonable price. I hoped it could be utilized in a class study. The movie was touted on the package as "John Steinbeck's The Pearl." The movie had an independent look, written, produced, directed by Alfred Zacharias, and I was hopeful that the rendition would not have been "Hollywood-ized," but remain faithful to Steinbeck's novella. I was wrong. The video packaging should have more accurately read: "A loosely based adaptation of John Steinbeck's The Pearl."
*SPOILERS START*
I can allow Zacharias some artistic leeway in the creation of his movie. There were multiple inconsistencies and added scenes between the novella and the movie. These inconsistencies, while annoying and not true to the novella, remained true to the spirit of the novella and did not detract wholly from the movie.
Examples, in the movie, a scorpion bites Coyotito in the leg, in the novella the scorpion bites the child in the shoulder. The pearl buyers in the movie ultimately offer Kino 2,000 pesos for the pearl, but in the novella Kino is offered the best price of 1,500 pesos. In the movie, Kino kills three men smashing his boat, while in the novella Kino kills one man after an attempt to rob him of the pearl. There are too many other inconsistencies, as well as added scenes, that I will not attempt to describe, but again. these types of inconsistencies and added scenes, while departing from the novella, did not necessarily detract from the movie.
HOWEVER, there were other gross departures which made the movie a whole different animal than the novella. I will describe some of the most egregious departures.
After Coyotito is refused medical treatment, Kino goes pearl diving. In the novella, Juana is praying that Kino finds a great pearl so they can afford medical treatment for Coyotito. When Kino finds the large oyster in the sea he is excited and brings it to the surface, the oyster is opened in the boat, and Kino howls when the great pearl is discovered. In the movie, this whole tension is lost. Kino is out pearl diving, just like any other day, and a storm drives he and Juana into shore. He casually opens the oyster to find the great pearl and gets excited.
In the movie, Kino's father, a one-legged cripple, plays a major role. Eventually, he is murdered, pushed off a cliff, after Kino refuses to sell the pearl to the local buyers at the fixed price. While a major character and incident in the movie, this character did not even exist in the novella.
In the novella, the doctor was one of many people, known and unknown, who wanted to get their hands on Kino's pearl. In the movie, the doctor became the chief antagonist. The doctor conspires with the pearl buyers to cheat the local divers out of their pearls. In the novella, this chief pearl buyer is unknown. Further, in the movie, the doctor is not actually a doctor, but a fugitive from Europe posing as a doctor in Mexico. The doctor, in the movie, is seen hiring a hunter to track Kino for the pearl. As payment, the hunter demands from the doctor his rich medical practice once he returns to Europe. All of this is added to the movie and never happened in the novella.
The movie makes much out of the "vanished ones," a legendary group of men who took the diver's pearls to the capital to get a better price, only never to return. In the novella, the reader is left to speculate their fate. In the movie, Kino, in the vast desert and mountains of Baja, Mexico, stumbles upon the "vanished ones" bones in a cave, determines they were shot by the doctor's men, and returns to the village to vindicate the "vanished ones" and implicate the doctor in their murder.
Finally, in the novella, Coyotito is killed by a rifle shot from the hunter just as Kino attacks the hunter and trackers. Kino and Juana, defeated, return to the village with the lifeless body of Coyotito, and throw the pearl into the sea. The death of Coyotito, while sad, is central to the ending of Steinbeck's novella. However, the movie departs from Steinbeck's ending, and went for the happy glitzy Hollywood ending where Coyotito is not killed, and Kino and Juana triumphantly return to the village to toss the pearl back into the sea.
*SPOILERS END*
Thanks are given in the closing credits to Elaine Steinbeck, presumably the widow of John Steinbeck. I assume she gave her blessing to this rendition of "The Pearl;" shame on her for pandering her late husband's work. I would be interested in seeing "La Perla," a 1947 movie made in Mexico, in which John Steinbeck had a hand in the production. I understand at least the ending of that movie remained faithful to Steinbeck's novella. Rarely have I seen a movie based on a literary work that remains true to the author's original vision. Why?
Lukas Haas was adequate as Kino, but I just kept seeing the kid from "Witness," only taller and with a penciled in mustache. Tere Lopez-Tarin made a nice Juana. Richard Harris, in one of his last movie rolls, performed well as the doctor, but his character was not true to the novella.
To Zacharias' credit, the movie was filmed in part on location in LaPaz, Mexico, on the Baja peninsula, the actual setting for the novella.
The movie does have some artistic quality, but I gave it 2 out of 10 stars mostly for its gross departures from the original plot of John Steinbeck's "The Pearl."
I am an English teacher and The Pearl is part of the Freshmen curriculum. I was excited to see "The Pearl" available from a mass retailer for a reasonable price. I hoped it could be utilized in a class study. The movie was touted on the package as "John Steinbeck's The Pearl." The movie had an independent look, written, produced, directed by Alfred Zacharias, and I was hopeful that the rendition would not have been "Hollywood-ized," but remain faithful to Steinbeck's novella. I was wrong. The video packaging should have more accurately read: "A loosely based adaptation of John Steinbeck's The Pearl."
*SPOILERS START*
I can allow Zacharias some artistic leeway in the creation of his movie. There were multiple inconsistencies and added scenes between the novella and the movie. These inconsistencies, while annoying and not true to the novella, remained true to the spirit of the novella and did not detract wholly from the movie.
Examples, in the movie, a scorpion bites Coyotito in the leg, in the novella the scorpion bites the child in the shoulder. The pearl buyers in the movie ultimately offer Kino 2,000 pesos for the pearl, but in the novella Kino is offered the best price of 1,500 pesos. In the movie, Kino kills three men smashing his boat, while in the novella Kino kills one man after an attempt to rob him of the pearl. There are too many other inconsistencies, as well as added scenes, that I will not attempt to describe, but again. these types of inconsistencies and added scenes, while departing from the novella, did not necessarily detract from the movie.
HOWEVER, there were other gross departures which made the movie a whole different animal than the novella. I will describe some of the most egregious departures.
After Coyotito is refused medical treatment, Kino goes pearl diving. In the novella, Juana is praying that Kino finds a great pearl so they can afford medical treatment for Coyotito. When Kino finds the large oyster in the sea he is excited and brings it to the surface, the oyster is opened in the boat, and Kino howls when the great pearl is discovered. In the movie, this whole tension is lost. Kino is out pearl diving, just like any other day, and a storm drives he and Juana into shore. He casually opens the oyster to find the great pearl and gets excited.
In the movie, Kino's father, a one-legged cripple, plays a major role. Eventually, he is murdered, pushed off a cliff, after Kino refuses to sell the pearl to the local buyers at the fixed price. While a major character and incident in the movie, this character did not even exist in the novella.
In the novella, the doctor was one of many people, known and unknown, who wanted to get their hands on Kino's pearl. In the movie, the doctor became the chief antagonist. The doctor conspires with the pearl buyers to cheat the local divers out of their pearls. In the novella, this chief pearl buyer is unknown. Further, in the movie, the doctor is not actually a doctor, but a fugitive from Europe posing as a doctor in Mexico. The doctor, in the movie, is seen hiring a hunter to track Kino for the pearl. As payment, the hunter demands from the doctor his rich medical practice once he returns to Europe. All of this is added to the movie and never happened in the novella.
The movie makes much out of the "vanished ones," a legendary group of men who took the diver's pearls to the capital to get a better price, only never to return. In the novella, the reader is left to speculate their fate. In the movie, Kino, in the vast desert and mountains of Baja, Mexico, stumbles upon the "vanished ones" bones in a cave, determines they were shot by the doctor's men, and returns to the village to vindicate the "vanished ones" and implicate the doctor in their murder.
Finally, in the novella, Coyotito is killed by a rifle shot from the hunter just as Kino attacks the hunter and trackers. Kino and Juana, defeated, return to the village with the lifeless body of Coyotito, and throw the pearl into the sea. The death of Coyotito, while sad, is central to the ending of Steinbeck's novella. However, the movie departs from Steinbeck's ending, and went for the happy glitzy Hollywood ending where Coyotito is not killed, and Kino and Juana triumphantly return to the village to toss the pearl back into the sea.
*SPOILERS END*
Thanks are given in the closing credits to Elaine Steinbeck, presumably the widow of John Steinbeck. I assume she gave her blessing to this rendition of "The Pearl;" shame on her for pandering her late husband's work. I would be interested in seeing "La Perla," a 1947 movie made in Mexico, in which John Steinbeck had a hand in the production. I understand at least the ending of that movie remained faithful to Steinbeck's novella. Rarely have I seen a movie based on a literary work that remains true to the author's original vision. Why?
Lukas Haas was adequate as Kino, but I just kept seeing the kid from "Witness," only taller and with a penciled in mustache. Tere Lopez-Tarin made a nice Juana. Richard Harris, in one of his last movie rolls, performed well as the doctor, but his character was not true to the novella.
To Zacharias' credit, the movie was filmed in part on location in LaPaz, Mexico, on the Baja peninsula, the actual setting for the novella.
The movie does have some artistic quality, but I gave it 2 out of 10 stars mostly for its gross departures from the original plot of John Steinbeck's "The Pearl."
A bad Interpretation of the book
sonicfan9904 December 2006
I recently saw this movie in my English class after my reading of the pearl. The novella the Pearl was the influence of this movie. However the movie lacked many of the important symbols and events from the book. Juana's shall was one important symbol in the book. The movie never portrayed this. Also in the movie the doctor was made a major character. In the original story, the doctor was a much smaller character. Hardly any of Stienbeck's imagery was showed either. This destroyed the entire point of the movie and the plot was not preserved. It was a horrible attempt at a recreation of the pearl. I'm sure that if John Steinbeck were alive to see this horrible movie today, He would be ashamed that his work inspired this terrible movie. I do not recommend this movie for any one, especially those who read the book. If you have read this book and seen this movie you probably know the horrible job it did making the book come alive. If you need to read the book for any kind of class this isn't the movie to take the easy way out with. This movie gives the book a bad name.
Horrible, bad effects.
keyancey-13-17824929 May 2014
The Pearl is a horrible movie, without a doubt. The actual pearl glows like a 60-watt light bulb. They said the rain was coming, and the rain clouds moved at 60MPH. Horrible portrayal of the movie. Some minor differences in the book, and the movie. The rain was clearly fake, as only one part of the set was being rained on. My English teacher showed this to me and said we are watching a movie, not a good one. The lighting was so dim in some dark seems that it looked like it was filmed in a dark closet, with no one on camera. The budget for this movie seemed a little lax, maybe in the 2,000-10,000 range. The only good actor is the Doctor, and Juan Tomãs. Don't expect anything good from this movie.
The Pearl: Avoid if you can.
jacob-m-ford9712 April 2013
The Pearl, released in 2001, and probably the worst movie of that year. I watched this movie out of curiosity since I had just finished the book, and that was where my dislike began. Where the writers and director changed the story, which they did very frugally. With that aside, I will concentrate on the movie and how it was made.
The actors of any movie are a good place to start, so that is what I will do. Lukas Haas was cast as the lead, Kino, who is described in the book as a large and strong man who has physically worked for everything in his life; I would be surprised if Lukas Haas weighs more than 150 pounds. Physicality can be overcome if the actor believes in his part and is committed, however this is not the case as Lukas Haas would just stand there watching the other actors go, even though they were not even half-decent, trying desperately to remember his lines. Richard Harris, playing the villain of the movie (not of the book), was a slight saving grace, and was able to do the best with the lines he was given. Nevertheless, I still do not understand why this two-time Oscar nominee chose to do this movie.
Even without the actors help, the director can still make a movie a success. Once again, though, this was not the case. Each scene of the movie was extremely poorly crafted, and even laughable to watch. With random characters thrown in to state obvious facts, my favorite being the man with the beard proudly announcing that "they have not yet said a price" during the appraisal scene. The director also had a poor eye for detail with little mistakes throughout, such as Kino's black spandex that he was wearing underneath his loin cloth, which can be scene plainly during the diving scene. And of course the director couldn't resist throwing in a love scene that lies nowhere in the book.
The Pearl was an overall terrible movie, and I found myself laughing aloud at the poor filmmaking and acting. In my immediate memory, I cannot think of a movie which was worse than this. The Pearl has obviously received zero award success.
I give The Pearl a very worthy 2.1/10.
The actors of any movie are a good place to start, so that is what I will do. Lukas Haas was cast as the lead, Kino, who is described in the book as a large and strong man who has physically worked for everything in his life; I would be surprised if Lukas Haas weighs more than 150 pounds. Physicality can be overcome if the actor believes in his part and is committed, however this is not the case as Lukas Haas would just stand there watching the other actors go, even though they were not even half-decent, trying desperately to remember his lines. Richard Harris, playing the villain of the movie (not of the book), was a slight saving grace, and was able to do the best with the lines he was given. Nevertheless, I still do not understand why this two-time Oscar nominee chose to do this movie.
Even without the actors help, the director can still make a movie a success. Once again, though, this was not the case. Each scene of the movie was extremely poorly crafted, and even laughable to watch. With random characters thrown in to state obvious facts, my favorite being the man with the beard proudly announcing that "they have not yet said a price" during the appraisal scene. The director also had a poor eye for detail with little mistakes throughout, such as Kino's black spandex that he was wearing underneath his loin cloth, which can be scene plainly during the diving scene. And of course the director couldn't resist throwing in a love scene that lies nowhere in the book.
The Pearl was an overall terrible movie, and I found myself laughing aloud at the poor filmmaking and acting. In my immediate memory, I cannot think of a movie which was worse than this. The Pearl has obviously received zero award success.
I give The Pearl a very worthy 2.1/10.
Horrendous
zwartje24 July 2006
One of the worst movies I have ever seen.
+ the DVD's box made me pick up this crap so i guess it's worth mentioning
- acting...uh what acting - plot...just plain silly. I bet the book was good but this movie puts the whole story to shame.
- i took us about 15 minutes to find out the movie took place in Mexico or some other country in central America. Bad casting: Gringo Americans trying to act like Mexicans - the guy who played Kino bombed it so badly that it wasn't funny anymore.
- why oh why did Richard Harris take part in this movie. Doesn't he have better things to do like take care of his garden and visit grandchildren and so on.
+ the DVD's box made me pick up this crap so i guess it's worth mentioning
What a disappointment! (possible spoiler)
vicariouslife9 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I read dudeky's comment before ordering this DVD. My seventh grade classes read this novel every year. Students always ask to see the movie, and I am learning that teaching students to be critical viewers is as important as teaching them to be critical readers... so I took a chance and ordered this.
_The Pearl_ is a classic novel with wonderfully constructed conflicts. The characterizations and plot lines of this film are not true to the novel in any way. The cinematography is amateurish,and the acting is incredibly weak. I think my students and I could do as well with a rented video camera.
I do wish someone would make this movie the right way. The 1947 one is irritating because of the odd music effects (due to age???). The novel is not at all laughable, yet I laughed many times during this movie -- at the strange constructions and incredible twists we are expected to believe.
I guess the best part is that students will learn that reading books will not be replaced watching movies. There should be some fascinating classroom discussion as a result of this!
_The Pearl_ is a classic novel with wonderfully constructed conflicts. The characterizations and plot lines of this film are not true to the novel in any way. The cinematography is amateurish,and the acting is incredibly weak. I think my students and I could do as well with a rented video camera.
I do wish someone would make this movie the right way. The 1947 one is irritating because of the odd music effects (due to age???). The novel is not at all laughable, yet I laughed many times during this movie -- at the strange constructions and incredible twists we are expected to believe.
I guess the best part is that students will learn that reading books will not be replaced watching movies. There should be some fascinating classroom discussion as a result of this!
A fine adaptation
grah118 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
A novella like "The Pearl" requires some fleshing out and consolidation in order to make it meet the demands of a movie adaptation. I found the portrayal of Richard Harris's doctor as the villain of the piece a very satisfactory way of putting a face to the cause of Kino's problems. In the book, he's attacked by shadowy types, and you're never certain just who they are. That's fine in a book where you can go back and look for clues, but not so good in a movie. In the book, the clues point to the doctor as the source of at least the first attack, so it makes sense to give the doctor the position of head pearl - buyer too. I appreciated the presentation of the head beggar as a sort of Greek chorus. Like the book, it showed that there were people worse off than Kino, and unlike the book it showed that just because you're poor, it doesn't make you a greedy so - and - so like the doctor. The cinematography emphasised the beauty of Kino's home, and the music, while not the most inspired in the world, suggested aptly what was going on around Kino, just as it does in the book. Someone criticised the glowing pearl elsewhere on this site. In the book Steinbeck says that the pearl "cozened" Kino's mind, and I believe that the "magical" pearl that we see represents this idea well. As for the ending - it's a movie! Also in the book there is a hint of triumph about Kino and Juana's return to La Paz - people are afraid to mess with them now because of the "pillars of sorrow" that metaphorically tower above them, and Kino at last has his rifle, albeit at a terrible price. Overall, I recommend that students who enjoyed the book watch this interpretation and consider some of the decisions made by the director. Doing so will enhance your understanding of Steinbeck's novella.
This movie must have been a cover for a crime
prosper124 April 2007
There is something about"springtime for Hitler" about this movie. Script, art direction, acting, lighting, directing, casting were the worst I have ever seen. Tghe rationale here must have been they made a load of dough from investors and kept the money or they were smuggling coke in the dailies....
THe whale in the opening sequence and the actual local on the southern part of the Baja are the only thing of interest in this film
The box well represented in BIG BOLD letters that this is Peter O'Tooles last film role... which may be cause to exhume and see if he committed suicide after viewing this POS
THe whale in the opening sequence and the actual local on the southern part of the Baja are the only thing of interest in this film
The box well represented in BIG BOLD letters that this is Peter O'Tooles last film role... which may be cause to exhume and see if he committed suicide after viewing this POS
Great movie loved watching it
natalyme-4269617 June 2021
love it
lisabzx38 January 2008
I love this honest story about the battle over good and evil. What a great movie for your family.
I think Richard Harris always adds a little something special.
I love Jorge Rivera. He is so cool. I am always happy to see him in a movie.
Actually filming this movie in Mexico is good because it really sets a proper tone for the story. The underwater photography was great.
This film is great to teach people to always follow their heart and to do the right thing.If you read the book you will appreciate the movie.
I understand what the filmmaker is saying by keeping the film mellow and romantic. It is all about family,love and the pursuit of everything that is good.
I think Richard Harris always adds a little something special.
I love Jorge Rivera. He is so cool. I am always happy to see him in a movie.
Actually filming this movie in Mexico is good because it really sets a proper tone for the story. The underwater photography was great.
This film is great to teach people to always follow their heart and to do the right thing.If you read the book you will appreciate the movie.
I understand what the filmmaker is saying by keeping the film mellow and romantic. It is all about family,love and the pursuit of everything that is good.
Awful
jeremy_andrews26 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was very badly made. The editing is bad (at the beginning there are a bunch of random scenes, the casting was bad (white people playing Mexicans) and they take every little expression from the book literally (when in the book it says "Kino head the music of evil" John Steinbeck wasn't implying that Kino was actually listening to music, but in the movie, Kino walks into his house looking worried and Juana asks what is wrong and Kino says "I heard the music of evil!" (while evil-sounding music is playing in the background). Would you say "I heard the music of evil?" No! It's an expression that can't be used in normal speech. One other thing I wanted to add, is why is "the pearl of the world" glowing? I don't recall any mention of magic in the book! But this perfectly round and large pearl glows with a golden light whenever Kino holds or sees it (however this is inconsistent because sometimes it stops glowing). Anyways, to end off on a positive note, the book is pretty good, so I'd suggest you read that instead of watching the movie!
Could have been a good movie
Citizen_Cane1 February 2007
The movie was interesting as far as the story goes. Unfortunately, the acting and some of the plot devices which attempted to pull the movie together and to give the viewer some relationship with the characters were so pathetic and contrived that it literally made me laugh. This is the type of movie which would have made a great episode of Mystery Science 2000. Some of the action scenes were embarrassing, the idea that a man and his wife with a newborn child could go trudging through the desert with no provisions. Please, if you watch this, enjoy it as a comedy. Otherwise, you will have to turn it off about 20 or 30 minutes in. I am sure that no one will ever read this review because this movie is so poor I doubt anyone would waste their time like I have.
Worst Movie Ever
defmonkey8 May 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The Pearl Best Movie Ever (Not Really)
The Pearl made by Alfredo Zacarias has one of the worst interpretations of the pearl ever, i don't think he even read the book. Bad acting and horrible effects(the pearl looks like a light bulb).This does not even have some of the details in the book.
*SPOILER WARNING*
The movie the pearl is based around a fisherman named Kino (Lukas Haas) finds the pearl of the world(supposedly), and he goes to sell it. He has a lot of hardships along the way like his baby Coyotito being bitten by a scorpion, his house being burnt, his dad dying, and he kills three people.
In the book Coyotito (the baby) dies, in the movie Coyotito lives. This movie only spent like a dollar on graphics. They have a scene where Jauna is like "the rain is coming" and it showed rain that was going about 70 miles an hour that looked like it was played from a VCR player (if you don't know what that is look up what a movie played by one looks like). When the rain starts it only goes where the cast is, like they took a fire hose and brought it out of camera and threw it on the boat. This is why the movie is CRAPPY. The doctor(Richard Harris), is not a big character in the book but in the movie he is the main antagonist.
This movie is so horrible I almost vomited on my computer writing this. I give it one star. Do not watch this movie. In most cases the book is worst then the movie, but in this case, vice versa.
The Pearl made by Alfredo Zacarias has one of the worst interpretations of the pearl ever, i don't think he even read the book. Bad acting and horrible effects(the pearl looks like a light bulb).This does not even have some of the details in the book.
*SPOILER WARNING*
The movie the pearl is based around a fisherman named Kino (Lukas Haas) finds the pearl of the world(supposedly), and he goes to sell it. He has a lot of hardships along the way like his baby Coyotito being bitten by a scorpion, his house being burnt, his dad dying, and he kills three people.
In the book Coyotito (the baby) dies, in the movie Coyotito lives. This movie only spent like a dollar on graphics. They have a scene where Jauna is like "the rain is coming" and it showed rain that was going about 70 miles an hour that looked like it was played from a VCR player (if you don't know what that is look up what a movie played by one looks like). When the rain starts it only goes where the cast is, like they took a fire hose and brought it out of camera and threw it on the boat. This is why the movie is CRAPPY. The doctor(Richard Harris), is not a big character in the book but in the movie he is the main antagonist.
This movie is so horrible I almost vomited on my computer writing this. I give it one star. Do not watch this movie. In most cases the book is worst then the movie, but in this case, vice versa.
Terrific Story Weird film
kabakoros30 October 2021
The World Ain't Your Oyster, Kino
qormi6 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I showed the movie to my 6th grade class after having read the book with them. The movie is not faithful to the book, but this is commonplace. Very few movie adaptations are just like the book. That said, I think the film was okay. Mr. Haas may move around like a puppet and is in need of corrective ear surgery, but he played the lead well. He reminds me of Steve McQueen at times. Richard Harris was masterful in his role as the doctor. The actor who played the tracker was perfect for the role and did a great job. Ms. Lopez was excellent as Juana. Some of the movie was unintentionally funny, particularly the phony-looking wigs some of the characters wore. One of them was really bizarre. I have to say I liked the movie and would recommend it. Well-paced and suspenseful. At times it was very innovative.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
