Christopher Columbus: The Discovery

I read recently "The songs that my mother taugh me" the auto-biography of Marlon Brando. When he remember this movie, he said that he made all that he could for re-write the script, and he tries even when the film was in his final editing, to do a script that told THE TRUE, about Cristopher Columbus, and the "discover" of the new world... The REAL history. He was very disappointed and in fact he predicted that the film at the end, will be shameful. This is what happens when Hollywood hears the producers in love with the money and not to a genius with 35 years of experience.

This seems really to be an old-fashioned adventure film, the kind the studios churned out in great numbers in the 1940's. Maybe an Errol Flynn vehicle. That's the way Georges Corraface plays it, and it's okay. Not great, but okay. Marlon Brando totally mailed it in, as he was wont to do in his later years. Tom Selleck is a wonderful actor, but he really couldn't pull it off in this one. Rachel Ward was much more believable as Queen Isabella, regal, with more than a little bit of religious fanaticism. She also played it with minimal make-up, looking very forty-ish, something many actresses of her stature and beauty would have refused. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Benicio del Toro put in decent showings, given the limitations of the material. The scriptwriters were probably in a bit of a quandary, since the occasion (500th anniversary) called for a hagiography, but on the other hand, political correctness makes Colon out to be a villain. They tried to split the difference, and it didn't work. But over-all, this film is not as bad as some make it out to be. Oh, and mention must be made of the beauty of Tailinh Forest Flower as the Indian chieftain's daughter. Wow!

"Christopher Columbus: The Discovery" (1992) came out seven weeks before Ridley Scott's "1492: Conquest of Paradise," both of which tackle the same historic tale in celebration of its 500th anniversary. This one was directed by John Glen who's no slouch as he helmed five James Bond flicks in the '80s, including "For Your Eyes Only" (1981) and "Octopussy" (1983), both of which rank with the better 007 movies.

Scott's film is more artistic and epic, being longer by 34 minutes, whereas this one is more compact, not to mention it focuses more on the set-up to the expedition while "1492" is more concerned with what happens when Columbus hits ground on the other side of the Atlantic. Moreover, "Discovery" sticks to the first voyage whereas "1492" includes additional expeditions.

Both bombed at the box office, but "Discovery" made more money in North America and especially so if you factor in production costs ($40 million compared to $47 million). Each is worth checking out and comparing if you like real-life adventure. This one is more balanced in regards to the three acts and doesn't bog down with events in the New World. The weakest part of "Discovery" is the voyage itself, which runs half an hour (twice as long as in "1492"), which is understandable since it's difficult to make a long ship journey consisting of all males dramatically compelling. Scott's film did a way more convincing (and artistic) rendition of the Atlantic voyage.

However, "Discovery" has the superior cast with unknown Frenchman Georges Corraface charismatic in the title role, although Gérard Depardieu is more convincing in the role in "1492" when you consider historic artist depictions. Corraface, by contrast, comes across as the cliched Hollywood version of the explorer, which doesn't mean he's not effective. In any case, I like the way each version points out both Columbus' positive AND negative qualities.

Benicio Del Toro is also effective as one of the Spanish sailors of dubious character. Meanwhile it's great to see Brando near the end of his career as the Grand Inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada. While his role is peripheral, there's a subtle quiet greatness with his deep, effortless wisdom and spirit. Marlon would only perform in five other films. Then there's Tom Selleck as King Ferdinand, which critics curiously lambaste, but he actually kicks axx in the small role.

Speaking of critics, they all jumped on the hate bandwagon when "Discovery" was released as soon as they smelled blood in the water. However, neither this one nor "1492" are even close to being as awful as they claim. Like I said, they're definitely worth seeing if you prefer historical adventure in the mold of "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1962) and "The Bounty" (1984).

On the female front, Catherine Zeta-Jones is notable as Columbus' Castilian mistress, Beatriz. This was before she became a star, being only 21-22 during shooting and very cute. Rachel Ward also does well as Queen Isabella. Of course, most men will appreciate voluptuous Tailinh Agoyo as the chieftain's daughter for obvious reasons. Speaking of which, the women on the islands are overtly top nude, as was the case in "The Bounty." This is just a heads up.

I've heard critics say that "Discovery" can only be appreciated if you don't take it seriously, but this makes no sense since it's a historical tale in which the gist of events is true; for instance, what happens to the Santa Maria, as well as the 39 Spaniards left behind on Hispaniola when Columbus returned to Europe. While we know someone's head wasn't on the literal chopping block during the voyage, this was obviously added for dramatic effect.

Some complain about Columbus' swashbuckling early on, but he was widely traveled and I'm sure he ran into ne'er-do-wells with weapons on an occasion or two. I was held up by three guys with guns on a wilderness trail at one point while I've had friends involved in bloody knife fights at local bars and so forth. Let's not pretend like these kinds of clashes don't happen.

One of the reasons this flick and "1492" bombed was because Columbus was no longer viewed in a positive light by 1992 due to the preachin' of Lib academics who denounce the explorer as evil incarnate. But, let's face it, the European colonization of the Americas was BOTH a blessing and a curse, yet mostly a blessing since it introduced to the New World the written language, the horse, the wheel, wagons, stagecoaches, firearms, trains, industry, superior architecture and so on.

And let's not kid ourselves with the Lib fantasy that the Americas were a Garden of Eden before Euros arrived. There was constant war between "Indian" tribes, who are actually the progeny of settlers from Asia. There was also slavery, massacres, heinous torture of captives, gross human sacrifice in Mesoamerica to nourish their gods, headhunters in the Amazon. Need I go on? The idea conveyed in "The New World" (2005) that AmerIndians had never experienced envy/rivalry and didn't even know what a lie was is utterly laughable. I'm speaking as part-Abenaki.

The movie runs 2 hours and was shot in Portugal, Spain & Malta for the European events, the Atlantic Ocean for the sailing sequences and St. Thomas, U. S. Virgin Islands, for the island parts.

GRADE: B.

I do not know everything about the actual story, but I can imagine that it is more compelling than this. When I learned that this was written in part by Mario "The Godfather" Puzo, I got to hope for quality. With that said, I honestly doubt that I would have enjoyed this all that much regardless of how low my expectations were. The plot isn't all that engaging, and the pacing is uneven. This flick is simply put one of the best arguments for why you should not base viewing choices upon the cast alone. There are *amazing* actors in this, and they are utterly wasted. And several performances in this are unforgivably hammy. The special effects are painfully unconvincing. I wish I was kidding when I say that there is amateur theater with less obvious FX. Did I miss something? This was made in 1992! Did they misplace the budget? For that matter, how did the scenery get to look so bad? This is an adventure film, and that, at least in this case, means fight sequences. They're decent, but if you're looking for that, you can find far superior ones easily. There is some female nudity in this, for anyone that attracts or repels. I recommend this solely to history teachers who have a severe grudge against their students. 5/10

After being rejected by the Portuguese for financial help for a voyage across the Atlantic Ocean to the East Indies, "Christopher Columbus" (Georges Corraface) subsequently petitions "King Ferdinand" (Tom Selleck) and "Queen Isabella" (Rachel Ward) of a newly united Spain for the necessary ships and crew. As luck would have it, since the Portuguese had recently discovered a southern route to Asia around Africa, both King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were finally convinced and provided him the necessary ship and crew to make his voyage. What Columbus doesn't realize, however, is the amount of intrigue he will encounter as well as the danger that awaits him along the way. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this was an okay film for the most part which-like many films of a historical nature-embellished certain scenes to appeal to its intended audience. That said, although I would have preferred otherwise, I suppose it goes with the territory. Even more unfortunate, however, was the acting of Marlon Brando (as the influential Dominican advisor "Tomas de Torquemada") and the rather ridiculous costume worn by Tom Selleck. Admittedly, both Rachel Ward and Georges Corraface performed well enough but even so neither of them could elevate this mediocre film to any great degree and I have rated it accordingly. Average.