Christophe Colomb: La découverte

Christopher Columbus (Georges Corraface) is searching for support of his mission of exploration. He is certain of one sea connecting Europe to Marco Polo's discovery. The Portugese rejects him. King Ferdinand (Tom Selleck) and Queen Isabella (Rachel Ward) of Spain want to spread Christianity. Beatriz (Catherine Zeta-Jones) falls for Columbus. Inquisitor Father Tomas de Torquemada (Marlon Brando) interrogates him and his quest is rejected for countering religious doctrine. After getting royal acceptance, Columbus is able to convince doubting sailors and Martin Pinzon (Robert Davi) to support the voyage. Columbus faces sabotage, deprivation, brutality, and native revolt.

The story is fit for a historical drama. There are good bits and pieces but the overall is not that good. It looks inferior. This came out around the same time as "1492: Conquest of Paradise". Neither are terribly good movies but at least 1492 has the look of an epic. Tom Selleck has no business playing the Spanish king. He's basically Magnum, P.I. with a jewel bedazzled coat. It's laughable. By comparison, Marlon Brando is nowhere near as bad. Georges Corraface is functional but he isn't the biggest name. There are a couple of familiar faces like Zeta-Jones and Benicio Del Toro. There is limitation to the intensity. This is not quite good enough.

From the producer of 'Superman: The Movie' and 'Santa Claus: The Movie' comes what may well be the climax of a trilogy: the two-fisted tale of a lusty Genoese navigator who dared to sail the ocean blue to a New World, with a chorus, believe it or not, of Gloria in Excelsis Deo in the background. What more can be said? True guilty pleasures demand a willing suspension of good taste, and this tacky Hollywood whitewash may well stand as a classic of its kind. Screenwriter Mario Puzo tries to include as much history as he can, but the film is strictly a cartoon melodrama, complete with sword fights, romance, some pretty Atlantic Ocean sunsets and, in a casting nightmare unrivaled since Mel Gibson attempted Shakespeare, Tom Selleck and Rachel Ward playing King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. The film was sponsored by Quinto Centenario Spain, the official Columbus 500th anniversary commemorative society, which helps explain the flattering matinée idol heroism. But, honestly, could anything else have been expected from the director of Iron Eagle II and the previous few James Bond adventures?

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 hearing so many bad reviews for this movie, I knew I had to see it because I often find big budget disasters entertaining. Though that was no easy task, since the movie has never been released on DVD and has never popped up on any of the TV channels in my area (the last one probably because of the nudity in the movie.) I finally found it in a video store that still rents out VHS tapes. Well, is it as bad as you've heard? Yeah, it's pretty bad. The acting is pretty awful and the big names in the cast seem ill at ease throughout. The movie also has a poor sense of time, with periods that took a long time in real life condensed in what seems like a couple of weeks. And despite the fairly lavish budget, a lot of the movie looks surprisingly cheap and slapdash. (For example, a lot of the time when the ships are at sea, it's clear the boats are floating just a few feet from land.) As for the character of Christopher Columbus, you never get a feel of a real character, or feel what drives him or what he really feels. If you want to find out more about Columbus, I strongly suggest you go to your local library instead of sitting through this phoniness.

Now, to find a copy of 1492: CONQUEST OF PARADISE...

"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.