Watch The Old Man and the Sea For Free

Admirable film.

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

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.

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.

My thought: unbelievably boring I felt that this movie was no good as the book itself, I think it had poor graphics. It had the worst actors. The difference between the book and the movie is that the book paints a picture in your head and the movie barely even makes you think about the book. The maker of the movie cut some parts out and changed how the book was written. They took out the part when him when he was dreaming of lions in Africa, to him when he was younger and when he got married to his wife. The movie didn't help me at all to understand the story better. They put Ernest Hemingway in as an actor in the movie. They added his daughter in the movie. But in real life Anthony Quinn played the old man in the movie with his son and daughter as his daughter and as him when he was younger. The marlin barely even looks real. It's bigger than that.

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.