1492: Conquista del Paraíso

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.

1992 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.

What a bad movie. In the worst tradition of Hollywood, this film is full of cliches and simplifications. Every character's actions and personality can be predicted the second s/he appears on the screen. The past filtered through political correctness and ignorance looks very black and white. The queen is independent and intelligent, the nobles are greedy and selfish, the churchmen are a bunch of fanatical, ignorant liars. Anything else? Oh yes, I cannot believe that Depardieu agreed to play in this pathetic excuse for a movie.

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

I'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.