This film is not completely historically accurate, although it is fairly true to events. Some omissions are Columbus' mistress by which he had a second son, which is not even mentioned in the film, which tends to paint Columbus almost as a saintly figure. He was far from that. In addition to his infidelity, he was an advocate of Indian slavery, which is not mentioned in the film as well. Those miscues aside, the film is gorgeously shot, well-directed and acted, and the sense of the realities of the royal court appear to be fairly accurate. The film also fails to mention that Columbus took Indian prisoners away from their homes back to Spain against their will. The film is quite engaging, otherwise.
Add a Review
-
OttoVonB18 September 20021492 casts a long shadow over my filmgoing life. It is one of the first films I remember seeing where I started thinking of all the activity that went into making a film. My young mind did not process a lot of the plot - and in retrospect I can partly blame the makers of this film - but I did notice shots, sounds, music. Perhaps the music more than anything.
So fast-forward a decade and a half at least... 1492 was massive in Europe when it came out. Ridley Scott, director of Alien, Legend and Blade Runner, was telling the story of Christopher Columbus, starring the venerable Gerard Depardieu, all to a score by Vangelis which flew off the shelves faster than any film score since, well, Blade Runner. What did they have to show for it.
We know the story, or we think we do: Columbus, an Italian immigrant, gets a grant from Queen Isabella of Spain to map a shorter route to India, sailing West. What he discovers is a whole new world, the Caribbean islands. But the "new world" experiment fails badly and before long utopia becomes a stage for jealousy, manipulation, superstition and even genocide.
It took several studios to co-finance this massive undertaking, based on a screenplay by journalist Rose Bosch. Supposedly, Scott immediately had his sights set on Depardieu, which paradoxically leads us to both the film's greatest asset and liability.
Depardieu exudes a very un-Hollywood brand of charisma: grounded, vulnerable, but also prone to hardness and anger. His Columbus is a tragic idealist, likable even when carried away by his own arrogance. It's hard to imagine anyone else in the role. It is a pity then that his English was nowhere near good enough to carry the film.
For many years, I had been warned and had only seen the film dubbed in my native French (it did help that Depardieu dubbed himself, as did supporting actor Tcheky Karyo), but upon seeing the film "as intended" I was simply baffled. This, coupled with a script that leaves a few motivations unexplained and sometimes gets bogged down, severely undermines a film that is otherwise brimming with first-rate craftsmanship.
Despite the odd heavy-handed use of orange gradient filters recalling the younger Scott brother's feature-length Air Force commercial, the film is littered with unforgettable imagery. Vangelis' music, though even more effective listened to on its own, plunges you headfirst into another world, one of infinite possibilities.
The net result is a very imperfect film, but as an exercise in world-creation, an admitted Ridley Scott hobby, you'l be hard pressed to find its equal. -
HotToastyRag29 July 2019I'll never forget reading about the making of 1492: Conquest of Paradise in my beloved biography Depardieu. Gérard, set to play Christopher Columbus in Ridley Scott's epic, studied English with a private tutor for months before filming, to try and wean him away from his famous accent. Then, during the scene when he learns of his voyage's destination, he storms through the room and declares, "My God! We leave in two weeks!" When you watch that scene, you'll find it hard to believe he worked so hard to take away his accent, since he sounds exactly like he always does. But, since I love him, I don't really care. To any critics, I offer the challenge to them to try and become fluent in a foreign language without any trace of an American accent, all in front of a movie camera.
At the end of the day, 1492 wasn't a success at the box office, but it's a very tricky subject to get right. Are you going to paint Columbus in a positive light? Are you going to focus on the voyage, the backstory, or his life in the New World? Is it going to be fictionalized, painfully truthful, or somewhere in between? If the latter, you can guarantee critics will rake your movie across the coals for being realistic in parts and glossing fiction over other parts. So, when you rent this movie, be open-minded. The movie won't please everyone, but even the most thorough history classes won't please everyone.
What you will get in 1492 is a very lush, beautifully filmed epic. The sets and interior design are very pretty and realistic, complete with natural-looking lighting. The outdoor environment, filmed on many different islands, looks as untouched by civilization as possible, and many scenes are quite interesting to see Columbus's adjustments to his surroundings. You'll also get to see France's most popular, talented actor in another larger-than-life role. Granted, he doesn't sound Italian, but many Americans don't care about specific accents; as long as he has one, they think he sounds foreign enough. Sigourney Weaver dons some beautiful gowns as Queen Isabel, and you'll also see Armand Assante, Fernando Rey, Tchéky Karyo, and Frank Langella in the supporting cast. -
1492: Conquest of Paradise is directed by Ridley Scott and written by Roselyne Bosch. It stars Gerard Depardieu, Armand Assante, Fernando Rey, Sigourney Weaver, Michael Wincott and Tcheky Karyo. Music is scored by Vangelis and cinematography by Adrian Biddle.
"500 years ago, Spain was a nation gripped by fear and superstition, ruled by the crown and a ruthless inquisition that persecuted men for daring to dream. One man challenged this power. Driven by his sense of destiny he crossed the sea of darkness in search of honour, gold and the greater glory of God."
It barely made a dent at the box office, but neither did the other big Columbus release in 1992, Christopher Columbus: The Discovery. Meaning what? Both films are bad? Or that many went to see one that was bad and thought better than going to sit through another Columbus epic? Or maybe the topic, the anniversary of Columbus' voyage to the New World, just hadn't got the appeal that studios hoped for? All possible, but in the case of Ridley Scott's 1492: Conquest of Paradise, the lukewarm response is probably born out of it being a different kind of movie than that which was expected.
This is no rousing epic that's full of derring do and swagger, it's over talky for the non historical movie loving crowd, and crucially it goes against the grain of what Columbus, we are now led to believe, was like. It seems that Scott and Bosch were more happy to paint the famed explorer as a noble man of the people, a man of science, keeping his motives vague and his actions as dignified. With hindsight, it surely would have been more interesting to have had a Columbus picture portraying him as the self driven bastard he's been accused of being! I wonder how many more people would have paid to see that?
Film is not helped by Depardieu's performance as Columbus. Acting on direction of course, the restrained portrayal leaves the film without an heroic, passion fuelled edge, something that is badly needed in a film about such a momentous historical occasion. His fluctuating accent is also a nuisance. There's no doubting the professional performance the Frenchman gives, it's just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The other cast members jostle for screen time with mixed results, but Assante, Karyo and Wincott are good value for money. But they, like Depardieu, pale in the shadow of Scott's aesthetics.
This is where the film is a real winner. From the medieval make over for a moody Spain; to the capturing of ships setting sail from Port of Palos under an orange sky; to the wide angled shooting of Costa Rica, Scott and Biddle delight the eyes. When Bosch's screenplay allows, Scott is able to construct some truly indelible sequences, with garrotings, flaming pyres and a village assault serving notice that all is not lost here. But these, along with an extended sequence of men in unison trying to erect a giant bell, only make us notice just how much of a wasted opportunity this was. While Vangelis' stirring score also has one hankering after a narrative with more momentum.
Big flaws and frustrating, but not a complete disaster for those armed with the knowledge that this is no rousing and devilish experience. 6/10 -
Paul-20422 February 19991492 was not an exciting movie, at times, even, it was boring. Not the usual Ridley Scott stuff. But it's all made up for by Vangelis' score. The main theme is a recognizable piece of music, so beautiful; and the rest of the score is enchanting. To tell the truth I wouldn't have liked this film so much, if it weren't for the music!
-
mark.waltz6 August 2022So for this Ridley Scott adoption of what happened in regards to Christopher Columbus's voyage to accidentally discover the new world, I'm taking as fictional with some facts and looking at it as a historical at the entertainment and slight educational purposes only. Gerard Depardieu does a fine job as the supposed Italian explorer (everything is debated and questioned these days), yet I was fine with the job he did. (More believable to me than Frederic March in the 1949 British film.) It's a luxurious cinematic view of so much history, much of it disturbing, so you take the good and the bad with it, thinking as the island Columbus has come across becomes a Spanish dominated island, "Uh oh. There goes the neighborhood."
That phrase popped into my head the minute that the island natives encountered the Europeans, seemingly prepared for anything and surprised when they are not attacked by the weapons in these strangers hands. "We have a God. We have medicine", Columbus is told, and it's obvious that these are a very spiritual people who probably would have gone on just fine had they not been discovered. But they're a wonderful people, at least as presented here, with two different tribes living differently, yet in harmony, showing hospitality and aiding one sick European in getting well. The other tribe leader looks on at the snake that has just been killed for biting another European, and simply sits down, obviously knowing from past experience that there's no way they can fix the venom that is giving its victim obviously painful convulsions.
Then there are the villains who follow Depardieu back to the newly discovered Americas after the presentation of riches to Queen Isabella (a gorgeous Sigourney Weaver, quite regal and commanding). It's quickly revealed that they do not have the Goodwill towards the natives that Columbus and his men tried to have. Armand Assante and especially Michael Wincott give good performances as these less than noble men, turning the good intentions shown by Columbus into bad results. Fernando Rey and Frank Langella also give memorable performances
So in watching this movie as an epic rather than a completely accurate history lesson, I did enjoy it although I felt certain details could have been better researched and painting Columbus in a nearly perfect light. I did enjoy the Vangelis score and reproduction of these native lands, yet felt sad when the second voyage indicated that the land untouched by the outside supposedly for milleniums would lose its Garden of Eden like charm. The later part comes more believable with the use of brutalities, sadly violent and depressing. Certainly not the masterpiece that director Ridley Scott hoped for, but not a fiasco either. -
jack_o_hasanov_imdb17 August 2021One of the most important events in the world.
I found it average as a movie, it was also a bit long, but I had fun watching it.
Vangelis did a great job. -
logosgnosis22 December 2022This is a film whose protagonist is a recently maligned historical figure, so clutch your pearls if you don't dare see history as it might've occurred to Columbus. For me, it was worth considering that the world isn't black and white, that we judge from a modern moral framework that did not (indeed, could not) exist in 1492, and that opinions on colonialism in the 21st century aside, Colombus was a moral man. Bringing Christianity to the New World was exactly what a moral person in 1492 would concern themselves with (whether that suits your sensibilities today is irrelevant) and the story accurately portrays that he intended to do so with compassion and humanity - which does make him a sympathetic figure relative to his contemporaries.
If you read his journals, the story is supposedly historically more-or-less accurate (I have not, only excerpts).
I'm pleased to gain a greater understanding of a truly remarkable life. He was a dreamer, a visionary; an ambitious, self-made man; a foreigner and immigrant his entire life, who reshaped history (but whose person should not be blamed for the arc of all that ensued due to his discovery).
Ridley Scott is a master, of course. The world is vivid and detailed. It's dated filmmaking, but I was never too conscious of it. The score is great. And I never thought Depardieu's accent detracted from the telling as some others have complained about. -
damienmuldoon27 November 2005In 1992, the 500th anniversary of Columbus's arrival in the New World was marked with a deluge of movies, documentaries and T.V. dramas. Not only is this the best of those commemorative re-tellings, it is also a lesson in how good historical movies should be made. Ridley Scott's direction and Gerard Depardu's leading performance gives us a genuine feeling of what must have faced Columbus and his crew as they set off on a voyage that, in their time, was more dangerous than space travel. This movie does more than tell their story however. It recreates an epoch in a way that few other historical dramas ever have. Fifteenth century Spain is every bit as vivid as the unchartered jungles of Latin America. And it is a testament to Scott's skill as a director that he beautifully contrasts the splendor of Queen Isabella's court with the insect infested, monsoon ridden "New World". And yet we also see that while the hand of civilization has made Isabella's Spain so resplendent, it has also tainted it with corruption. No such corruption exists in the virgin forests of San Slavador. Not until the European's arrive that is.
Every single scene in this film is loaded with symbolism. Behind the dialog and interaction of characters, there is an abundant subtext that just craves to be explored. It is a film that you come to appreciate the more times you see it and come to understand better, the older you grow. Critics have been unenthusiastic and even dismissive of it. Don't dare listen to them until you have watched it at least three times yourself. It would also be careless of me to comment on this film without mentioning the brilliant score by Vangellis. Hovering between the atmospheric and the pure scary, it blends with the general aura of the film brilliantly. Pure magic. -
Prismark102 October 20131992 marked the 500th anniversary of the 'discovery' of the Americas.
It meant there were a plethora of documentaries and articles on Columbus. Some were critical that he discovered a continent that already had 1 million people living there.
Others suggested that the Americas might had been discovered by others before. Also Columbus found the wrong place as he thought it was India.
Ultimately many of the original inhabitants of the continent suffered from his discovery.
1492 from Ridley Scott tries to makes sense of these contradictions. It is a gloriously flawed film that has great art direction, production and music.
A multinational cast with Depardieu speaking his lines with a heavy French accent but bringing presence. Scott scored with his supporting cast of villains, all of them hiss-able as vipers on the head of Medusa. You know early on things are going to turn ugly for the native in the new world.
Scott likes his history, he admires Islamic history and you see it early on when it comes to the Reconquista. When Moorish structures are destroyed and lost forever, it shows that the Spanish aristocrats were not appreciative of the arts and noble causes.
They only care about the monarchy, church and gold.
Columbus is painted as a romantic adventurer, misguided even naive.
Depardieu cannot quiet hold the film together, frankly his English is not good enough. It is still a bold attempt at filmmaking but we lack the real, more complex and a more greedy Columbus. -
mid-levels11 September 2007The real story of Columbus is an adventure story with plenty of plot twists and interesting characters. So there was no need to fabricate history in this film. We have Columbus' journals that tell us what happened when he landed in the new world and the events that followed. This film set an agenda to make Columbus out to be a visionary who against the odds made good and the only problem was that everyone else didn't have his insight. Ridiculous! Columbus did something quite amazing in sailing to the new world but that doesn't mean that he didn't have serious flaws. For one, in the film he speaks about a "New World" but Columbus died believing he actually had found a passage to Asia so for him there was nothing new about it. The first encounter with the natives is also ridiculous in the film. In Columbus' journal we see that naked villagers came out onto the beach and that Columbus claimed the land for Spain and then took out his sword and tested the natives' knowledge of weapons. They had none and Columbus actually cut them. In the movie, Columbus is just walking through the jungle and he is approached by hostile natives ready to fire their arrows at him. He tells his men who are about to open fire to stop and that they must act peacefully. So Columbus becomes the peacemaker when in reality the natives were peaceful and he drew his sword on them. There are tons of these moments in the movie that make this movie a joke in terms of history. If directors are going to use real historical figures they need to represent them accurately. If they want to imagine or reimagine the colonial experience then they should use fictional characters.
-
dentonsfarm16 October 2005Ridley Scott's masterpiece, 1492: A Conquest of Paradise, is a visually compelling film and well acted. Those who gave low viewer ratings in the viewer comments obviously do not see the beauty of epic films. Epics are supposed to be kind of lengthy. It is, to me, the best depiction of Columbus I have ever seen. True, the lead actor is a Frenchman, but if you set that aside you can see that he looks and acts like what one would picture Columbus to be. Durring the sailing scenes it almost made you feel as though you were sailing along with Columbus. I think that the people who are down on the historical accuracies and "inaccuracies" of this film do not cease to realize that Columbus was out for more than spices from India but also a conquest to spread the Gospel to the people of the Far East. The other inaccuracies of the film have only been brought to light years after the films release. They discovered that Columbus was probably not from Genova.
-
davidmvining4 February 2020This would make a really interesting lower half of a double bill with Terrence Malick's The New World. They're pretty explicitly about the same theme, finding paradise on Earth only for it to slip through the characters' fingers as they reach out to reclaim it, but the idea is approached very differently across the two films. The New World is the poetic version, and 1492: Conquest of Paradise is the more literal minded (but still visually sumptuous) take by Ridley Scott. It's not nearly as successful as The New World, but I do think there's quite a bit to like in Scott's take on Christopher Columbus.
It's the early 90s and everyone knows that a new world is required. I'm of course talking about the early 1990s and a bunch of studio executives remembering a nursery rhyme from their nannies about Columbus sailing the ocean blue in 1492. So, they greenlit two pictures. I've never seen Christopher Columbus: The Discovery (and have no desire to, considering its reputation), but being a Ridley Scott fanboi, I've always had a soft spot for this large adaptation of ten years of Columbus' life.
The first hour is where the movie works best. It's his time trying to convince financiers and representatives of the Spanish crown and Church that he could easily sail to India by going west from Portugal. The ancient Greeks who devised the circumference of the Earth were wrong and it's not actually that far to India. The knowledgeable academics scoff at Columbus because he's rejecting settled science that's been settled since Ptolemy. Columbus was actually wrong, by the way. If America hadn't happened to have been right there, smack dab in between the two, Columbus would have starved to death on the open sea.
But that's not the point. The point is that Columbus was a visionary. He didn't see the world as it was accepted, he saw it as he wanted it to be. He lucked out when the unknown continent and its islands happened to be between Europe and India, but his vision didn't end with just a new trade route.
The trip westward is finely filmed with the expected grumblings of mutiny, but it's the landing at San Salvador that takes the cinematic cake of the film. Perhaps it's filmed as one would expect (slow motion with Columbus falling to his feet), but the combination of image and sound (with a quality score from Vangelis) makes the landing feel really special.
It's here, on the island that the natives and the movie call Guanahani that Columbus sees his new vision, that of a new Eden. This is right out of Malick's playbook and even feels like the retreats to nature seen in Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line, and, especially, The New World. It's innocent and where the European men are their happiest. They live with nature and the natives in perfect harmony for a time, but this paradise is temporal, for it is on Earth. Columbus must return to Spain for the health of his financier, and he leaves behind several dozen men who wish to remain.
The trip back is a huge success, though he brings back little gold or spices that one would expect from part of India. He gets feted and honored by Isabella, and sent back with hundreds more men to truly make that place a new Eden for more Spaniard, but upon his arrival, Columbus finds all the men he left behind dead, killed by one of the native tribes. He advocates mercy and tolerance in the face of his more extreme noble members, determined to make the paradise he envisioned.
This second half of the film is a bit clunkier, covering more time with more moving parts and characters to track. It works as well as it can with action beats and a villain, but it's still a letdown from the first. Columbus comes through it as noble-minded but deeply flawed, unable to see the world for what it is, pushing everything aside for his vision of what the world should be. There are implications that he's foreseeing what would become some of the central tenets of the American War for Independence, especially in his interactions with Moxica, a Spanish lord who accompanies Columbus on the second voyage.
Being a Ridley Scott film, the movie looks really good from beginning to end. His use of smoke, steam, and snow to provide texture helps throughout. He frames his scenes exceedingly well, and the lush greens of the tropics pop off the screen, offering a strong counterpoint to the whites and light browns of the Spanish settlement that rises from the jungle. Gerard Depardieu is large and physically imposing as Columbus, while also convincingly wide-eyed and innocent of the world while hardheaded about his own vision.
It's not Scott's greatest work, but it takes a large subject and boils it down to a compelling theme that twists around its main character in interesting ways. It's a solid effort, and a quality entertainment. -
This film seeks to show the journey in which Christopher Columbus allegedly discovered America. About this there is a lot of historical controversy and its very difficult to be sure if the true discoverer was him, Amerigo Vespucci or the Portuguese João Vaz Corte-Real (who seems to have explored the Canadian coast twenty years before Columbus's voyage). There are also doubts about the origins of Columbus. Some think he was Castilian and not Italian, others think he was from Sardinia, others claim that he was born in Portugal. But the film does not explore these controversies, remaining faithful to the canonical version of the facts: a Genoese navigator who discovers America to Castile. But even so the film makes mistakes. Columbus was an adventurer and not a man in search of a dream, and the Castilian kings only allowed themselves to finance him because they had information that already had given as probable the existence of new lands in the region that Columbus wanted to explore. Thus, the navigator died believing that he had arrived in Asia and only later navigation's determined to be a new continent. Everything I've said here throws out some ideas of the film and proves that the writer made a serious mistake by completely ignoring the navigator's travel diaries and basic facts of his biography, not restraining himself from inventing when he pleased, under the argument of creative freedom that, even in a movie, should not justify all that the screenwriter invents. Okay, it's a movie and not a documentary, but if it's a historical fact there should still be some rigor in the way it's portrayed. The interpretation of Depardieu is not bad, but the accent was something that he messed up a bit. The way the Indians were portrayed also seems incorrect and stereotyped. Even so, the film is worth it because its cinematically beautiful, has almost epic scenes and depicts very well the effort and daring of those who ventured across the seas. One thing I cannot fail to point out: the extraordinary soundtrack of Vangelis, which has become an icon of music for cinema.
-
Nicky-4325 October 2000Director Ridley Scott and writer Roselyne Bosch play fast and loose with historical accuracy in this white-washed telling of Christopher Columbus' adventures.
Rather than seeing the Columbus of history plundering other lands in search of gold while brutally enslaving and mass murdering the natives, we are presented with a kind, gentle, benign Columbus (portrayed by the surrealistically cast Gérard Depardieu) who's surrounded by unscrupulous characters. Scott's Columbus is an idealistic visionary who only wants "a new world," yet is a pawn caught between bad people doing bad things. Poor Columbus ... all he wants to do is explore.
Of course, this calls for *a lot* of historical revisionism for the screenplay, which re-arranges events and the instigators of them (atrocities are shifted to the work of others rather than Columbus, and for different reasons; otherwise, it's omitted from the story).
But why fictionalize history (reality is always more interesting) with this pabulum, and then pass it off as "history"? Either no research was done, or they intentionally fabricated the story; there is no other option.
"Life has more imagination than we carry in our dreams," we are told just before the closing credits. Indeed. Too bad the writer didn't follow this advice. The truth would have made far better drama. -
If this ever comes out on DVD in Region 1, and has English subtitles, I would purchase it. Otherwise, forget it.
THE GOOD - Director Ridley Scott, as he tends to do in many of his pictures, gives us some magnificent scenery and colors. The photography is just beautiful, and I'd love to see it in on a nice widescreen transfer. Also excellent is the soundtrack. I have owned perhaps only two dozen soundtrack CDs in the past 45 years, but this is one of them.
THE BAD NEWS - Watching this on tape twice in the '90s turned out to be an exercise in futility and frustration. The main characters are played by Gerald Depardieu and Armand Assante, and I could barely understand what these guys were saying. If I had that problem, I'm sure other people did, too. (Hence, English subtitles are a MUST.) The actors also seem miscast for the parts. At 150 minutes, this film dragged in spots, too.....yet the visuals and music are just too good to pass up. -
I honestly don't know everything about the history of the events that this is about, but from what I understand, this is almost entirely accurate, with only a handful of relatively minor mistakes or changes for cinematic quality. This comes off as very authentic. You are expected to know the basic background of what happens to fully follow this. This is mostly fair and objective, showing a great deal of respect for the Indians, their culture and beliefs. If it is black and white in any way, it is in the depiction of the Catholic church, which only has negative aspects revealed here. This is not unusual for Scott; look to Kingdom of Heaven, for example. While there are a couple of "villains"(the nobility and the representations of Christianity, of course), the characters are largely credible, well-developed and distinguish themselves. Several of them, including the Queen, are strong and memorable, as well. Weaver plays the role well, making a lasting impression with not that extensive screen-time. The acting in general is good, with several performances being excellent. Depardieu is spot-on. The cast is well-chosen. Wincott is fun to watch, as always. This is dramatic, if some of it is a tad forced and/or awkward. The score is arguably often over the top and too bombastic. FX are nice for the time this was made. The production values are high. This can be tense. The action takes up less than a fifth of the running time, and varies; however, at its best, it is engaging and exciting. There is a bit of disturbing(at times disgusting) brutal violence in this. I recommend this to anyone who wants a solid retelling. 7/10
-
ma-cortes27 February 2009This interesting film deals with Christopher Columbus' discovery of the Americas and the effect this has on the indigenous people . 500 years ago , Spain was a nation gripped by fear and superstition. Centuries before the exploration of space, there was another voyage into the unknown . Ruled by the crown and a ruthless inquisition that persecuted men for daring to dream. One man named Christopher Colombus (Gerard Depardieu) challenged this power . Following the theories of Marino De Tiro and Toscanelli and driven by his sense of destiny , he left his lover Beatriz (Angela Molina) and crossed the sea of darkness in search of honor , gold and the greater glory of God . He discovers America along with Martin Alonso Pinzon (Tcheky Karyo) and sets off on various voyages . In 1502 Columbus sailed with his son Fernando on his last travel to the New World . They landed in Panama where the Indians revealed to them the existence of a new sea , the Pacifican Ocean . The biography that Fernando (Loren Dean) wrote about his father restored the name of Columbus to its place in history, but the glory had been taken by also Italian Americo Vespuccio . In 1992 , his descendant Christopher Columbus is an Admiral in the Royal Spanish Navy . Life has more imagination that we carry in our dreams .
This is a brilliant and spectacular portrayal of the greatest explorer . It deals about his discovery of America , his fighting against enemies (Michael Wincott , Mark Margolis) and the fame that first greeted him . The man who explored the New World is shown in all his flawed complexity in this film . Colombus is well portrayed in a good acting by Gerard Depardieu who takes a contemporary approach as an ambitious adventurer who finally gets the Queen of Spain (Sigourney Weaver) along with a banker (Frank Langella) to agree to finance his voyage . Shot on location Salamanca (Spain) and Caribbean islands glamorously photographed by Adrian Biddle . Stirring and emotive musical score by Vangelis (Chariots of Fire, Blade Runner) . The motion picture packed with pomp and pageantry is lavishly produced by the prestigious Garth Thomas and Iain Smith ; being spectacularly and brilliantly directed by Ridley Scott at his best and as stylish as ever . Ridley is an expert on super-productions and a successful filmmaker as proved in ¨Someone to watch over me¨ , ¨Blade runner¨, ¨Black rain¨ , ¨Legend¨ in which his visual style is impressive . The picture belongs to his speciality , the historical genre , such as ¨Robin Hood¨ , ¨Black Hawk down¨ , ¨Kingdom of heaven¨ , ¨Gladiator¨ and ¨Duelists¨ . Rating : Above average . Essential and indispensable watching for Ridley Scott followers and historical cinema lovers .
Other adaptations about this historic character are the following : Christopher Columbus (1949) with Fredric March , Florence Eldridge and directed by David McDonald ; Columbus(1985) with Gabriel Byrne, Faye Dunaway and directed by Alberto Lattuada ; The Discovery (1992) by John Glenn with George Corraface and Marlon Brando ; and Spanish/Italian TV version by Vittorio Cottafavi with Francisco Rabal as Colombus considered one of the best renditions about this immortal personage . -
Jamara25 February 2002Vangelis' music for this film is really some of the best! It captures the mood of the film very, very well indeed! It also comes on CD - go buy it! Ridley Scott rules!
-
gayromeo200015 October 2003I think this movie got a score it doesn't deserve. First of all the story is about an adventurer who discovered America and who was rejected the honour for his efforts, it is all in the movie. It shows how Columbus went from being a hero to a nobody, it was his sons who had to fight for his honor after his death. The movie really presents this perfectly, all from Columbus' dreams until after he discovered America, got mocked and became a laughing stock. So this is not the typical hero movie you have seen, but it is rather true to its real story, at least as true as you can get in a movie lasting 2 hours from a story which goes over a period of 30 years out of an extraordinary man's life. The other movie made the same year about Columbus was more the typical hero movie, where it ended when Columbus discovered America. And the music in this movie is so good, it catches the moods in this movie so great, this music is as perfect to its story as the music in 2001. I want to recommend people to see this movie again and this time with another view, and try to remember what their seeing.
-
pharris-0019425 September 2021Sometimes you have to just accept that directors are going to take a different route when making a film. Having a vision or version in your mind is acceptable. Scott definitely didnt nail it on the head accurately, but the tone of the film is superb. Beautifully shot, amazing costumes, great acting, and beyond AMAZING score by Vangelis. Id like a more historically accurate film, but for a film buff myself I find myself enjoying this one for the craft and not necessarily the accuracy.
-
coqui568316 April 2002I have rarely seen a big budget historical film filled with so many inaccuracies. One would think that a film of that caliber could have hired a writer who would have known that Columbus left Hispaniola with only two ships, since the Sta. Maria was destroyed. The film shows 3 ships departing. There is never a mention of a third or fourth voyage, nor of the discovery of Terra Firme. Further, there is not a single mention of the name Hispaniola (or La Española) in the film. The dramatic scene of landfall at Guanahaní is ruined by the appearance of the island. Watling Island is low and scrub covered, not hilly and forested. The birds on the island and the fauna are more proper of Costa Rica. The scene of the death of a crewmember from a snake bite is a comical sham. Not only were are there no poisonous snakes in the Caribbean, there are no snakes at all on Watling. The budget of the film could have bought a lot more! What a waste...
-
drlarue-124 April 2005I first saw this movie in 1992 after hearing that I had missed something special from a friend who did see it in the theater. As one always interested in history since childhood, I looked into the history portrayed in this excellent film. Actually, it is adopted from Columbus's son's own memoirs and what is factually known. Columbus did strike out to find Asia, we all know that. But he actually did become idealistic and wish to create a New World for those weary of the old - and many were. This theme continued right into the development of the U.S., which may (or may not) be the best example of that intention. What many do not realize is how much this history intersects with the Knights Templar's search for a place to headquarter permanently after loosing it's hold in Europe in 1307-14. Sound crazy? Check the details! In Spain, the Templars were converted into an order called "Knights of Christ" and retained that famous cross that everyone is familiar with as present on the Santa Maria, but with no understanding. Prince Henry the Navigator was one and Columbus was made one. There is new (old) evidence that French Templars who settled in Scotland after 1314 made it to what is now Rhode Island (two archaeological evidences exist there, as well as evidence in Scotland). Some theorize (and this is much more theory than the aforementioned) that the hole on Oak Island was a stash created by the French Templars of the mysterious treasury that never has quite been accounted for and has given rise to numerous theories of Templars treasures in France and elsewhere. (Even the book - The Da Vinci Code utilizes parts of this foil in its plot). If you traced it truly, the diligent researcher will find that the Templars had its continuance as the Freemasonic brotherhood. The U.S. was founded by intention by French, American, and yes, British Masons. A strange coincidence? What has this to do with Columbus? Am I way off the subject. Well, no,... I would argue. That this movie is a visual and auditory masterpiece is without question. That the acting is everywhere from adequate to brilliant, (yes, who could play Moxica better, and how can anyone seeing this movie in English be so arrogant to complain that Depardieu has a French accent??) Columbus used the plans of Da Vinci (is a light going on?) for an ideal city for his ideal New World. That he had problems with his ideals becoming reality is more than commonplace for anyone who has tried to do something extraordinary, but especially when power is involved. His plan had to fail, even the weather was against it. No one in Europe understood hurricanes then.
I could go on, but there are dozens of points of historical discussion that this film prompts, including a thorough study of the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformation, the history of "Witch Trials" anti-Semitism in Europe, The Thirty Year War and the Wars of Religion, The Age of Reason, the rise of Science, etc., etc., etc! What a film packed with potential historical departures this is!! I pity those who miss all this richness.
When I read such negative reviews by those who claim the history is all wrong, I wonder what stereotype of history they think they were taught. It is no surprise to me that they seem to think the scene with the orange was about an orange! They didn't pay attention to this film long enough to understand the simplest scene! I gather they don't really pay much attention to history either, but have popular historical assumptions that they have been fed or imagined. This is a film that ought to be shown in every classroom in the New World as well as Europe, if nowhere else. And for those who claim they were bored - rent an Arnold shoot-em up and stay home during elections, your opinion is just that valuable. -
smellthecult-com-118 September 2009Ridley Scott's Christopher Columbus epic charts the life of the explorer from a few years before his legendary voyage to discover The America's. Gérard Depardieu plays Columbus - an odd choice, given that Columbus was Italian, not French, and Depardieu sounds about as French as it is possible to be - with conviction, and his is a believable portrayal of a man fired by a passion to chart the new world. An Italian immigrant in Spain, Columbus first must convince the Spanish nobility to fund the journey, which he manages to do. Upon arriving at the Indies, Columbus finds not a land inhabited by savages, as rumoured, but a noble people, kind and welcoming. The success of the first voyage brings more Westerners and, inevitably, the paradise is soon shattered and, as is the way of the white man, blood begins to flow. A study of jealousy, vision and the loss of innocence, this is a reasonable piece of cinema, though it is cripplingly slow in places, and it is maybe twenty minutes too long.
Interesting as a historical account, and sumptuous in its visualisation, this is not flawless movie-making, but is very assured nevertheless. -
silently_stressing7 March 2006Wow. I was expecting this to be interesting, I've always found historical movies to be somewhat exciting. You know, a mix of the truth and the glamour of Hollywood? However, this movie was a crock of crap.
It seems as though the makers considered Chris to be some kind of hero and visionary. In fact, at one point, he actually compares himself to the son of God. At one point, I couldn't help but burst out laughing at the sheer idiocy of the script. After that, I just couldn't take it seriously. Comparing himself to Jesus? Honestly.
I'll tell you what this movie is, and what it is not. It is a completely Hollywood-ized version of the events that really took place, so if you're into the falsehood factor, go for it. It is not a movie one should see if one has read up on some of the things in which Columbus was involved - enslaving and killing thousands, I mean.
It's only strong point is Gerard Depardieu's accent. That alone is almost worth watching it. The poor man speaks French very well, but his English comes out with a strong accent. In this movie, he plays Columbus - a man from Spain. So combine the French-ified English with an attempt at a Spanish accent, and there you go.
All in all? Please, don't waste your time. But if you like Gerard Depardieu a whole lot, by all means, take this opportunity to giggle at his expense.
Plus, he gets punched out by a monk.