1492: Conquest of Paradise

1492 was not an exciting movie, at times, even, it was boring. Not the usual Ridley Scott stuff. But it's all made up for by Vangelis' score. The main theme is a recognizable piece of music, so beautiful; and the rest of the score is enchanting. To tell the truth I wouldn't have liked this film so much, if it weren't for the music!

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.

Ridley Scott's "1492: Conquest of Paradise" (1992) came out seven weeks after "Christopher Columbus: The Discovery" (1992) both of which tackle the same historic tale in celebration of its 500th anniversary. The latter was directed by John Glen who's no slouch as he helmed five James Bond flicks in the '80s.

This film is more artistic and epic, being longer by 34 minutes, whereas "Discovery" is compact, not to mention it focuses on the set-up to the expedition while "1492" is more concerned with what happens after 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 they're each worth checking out and comparing if you like real-life adventure. "Discovery" is more balanced in regards to the three acts and doesn't bog down with events in the New World, but "1492" is a must if you want to see what happens beyond Columbus' first voyage. It provides no less than 75 minutes of material beyond the events of "Discovery."

The weakest part of "Discovery" is the voyage itself, which runs half an hour and is twice as long as the same in this film. While it's difficult to make a long ship journey involving only males dramatically compelling, "1492" is a way more convincing (and artistic) rendition of the Atlantic voyage.

While "Discovery" has the superior cast, Gérard Depardieu is more convincing in the role of Columbus compared to Georges Corraface 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 Columbus' positive AND negative qualities.

Meanwhile Armand Assante (Sanchez), Sigourney Weaver (Queen Isabel), Michael Wincott (Moxica) and Frank Langella (Santangel) are all memorable. But don't expect Marlon Brando or females on the level of Catherine Zeta-Jones and voluptuous Tailinh Agoyo. Speaking of the latter, the women on the islands are overtly top nude, as was the case in "The Bounty"; just a heads up.

Monkey-see-monkey-do critics jumped on the hate bandwagon when "Discovery" and "1492" were released as soon as they smelled blood in the water. However, neither film is even close to being 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).

One of the reasons "Discovery" 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 arguably more of a blessing since it introduced to the New World the written language, the horse, the wheel, wagons, stagecoaches, firearms, trains, industry, advanced 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 fighting between many "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 and 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, 34 minutes, and was shot mostly in Spain and Costa Rica.

GRADE: B+

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.

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.