Really Surprised!

Good concept, poorly executed.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

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.

Ridley Scott biopic about Christopher Columbus' discovery of the Americas. Yeah I know, lots of things wrong with that. Save the white knuckle rage for something that matters, folks. Anyway the historical inaccuracies of the picture don't bother me. What does bother me is that the movie is dry and slow with an unintelligible performance from Gerard Depardieu in the lead. Seriously, can anyone understand half of what he is saying in this? Also, Sigourney Weaver isn't very good as Isabella and Armand Assante is...well, Armand Assante. So proceed with caution on that. It's really a ho-hum affair that seems to go on forever. Since we already know the story, it really tries your patience after awhile. Looks good, though.

The film talks about the great voyages of Columbus and as a good movie Historic he manages to convey the mood of the time, but its history It is not very engaging and its characters are nothing developed. One thing that becomes clear in the film is the fact that he does not want to be more than a historical film, get "Schindler's List" for example, is a film that tells a very well history during the Second World War, but at the same time develops his characters in memorable scenes.This film is not at all bad, in fact the only thing I bothered were the facts presented above, as I said "1492 - A Conquest of Paradise "is a film that conveys very well the mood of his time, the scenes of the Holy Inquisition and the great voyages are good Examples of visual quality of the film, which sometimes creates a climate shocking (such as the Holy Inquisition) and sometimes has a great weather (as in the case of the great voyages of Colombo). Finally I can say that this is a good film, its technical aspects They are clean, but its story and its characters are not very developed, but I recommend it for those who like to see the great accounts of history books on the screen.

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, he discovered a continent that had 1 million people living there, might had been discovered by others before and he found the wrong place as he thought it was India. Ultimately many of the original inhabitants suffered from his intervention.1492 from Ridley Scott tries to makes sense of this contradictions. It is a gloriously flawed film, great art direction, production and music. A multi national 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 Americans.Scott likes his history and admires Islamic history and you see early on when it comes to Reconquista when Moorish structure are destroyed and lost forever that the Spanish aristocrats are not appreciative of the arts and noble causes but only care about the monarchy, church and gold.Columbus is painted as a romantic adventurer, maybe misguided even naive. Depardieu cannot quiet hold the film together, frankly his English is not good enough. Its still a bold attempt at filmaking but we lack the real, more complex and the more greedy Columbus.