1492 - La conquista del paradiso

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.

Yes, too long, too boring, too much license on the culture, and the characters aren't very believable. Also very surprising how it can be so outrageously kind to Columbus since this film was produced at a time when politically correct forces were raking the guy into infamy. I hate to sound like a broken record, but the music was beautiful. Maybe too much so. A inconspicuously second-rate score might have been more appropriate.

Director 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.

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.

One 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.