Film Review: "1492 - Conquest of Paradise" (1992)Receiving probably the highest independently-raised production budget of a decade in the early 1990s, Director Ridley Scott, at age 54, accumulates all the powers of live-action film-making, together with cinematographer Adrian Biddle (1952-2005) and down to a sword's tip production design by Norris Spencer to deliver a standing for all-time 150-Minute-Cut on the dramatized work-life-story of Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) based on an thrilling as original script by screenwriter Rose Bosch, who has been inspired by Marco Polo's experience reports from a 14th-century-journey to China; this "Columbus" interpretation dares to sail the Atlantic ocean westbound to hit an island of the Caribbean with fully-financed prospects from the Spanish Queen Isabel, match-making portrayal by actress Sigourney Weaver and certain in-country aristocrats for "The New World", inhabited by cooperative then-slaughtering Natives in add-on action favors of an immensely-emotional "tour-de-france" traveling with actor Gérard Depardieu in the leading role, who must confront two nemesis characters at once - spiritually as physically - given faces by collision-coursing, suspense-striving supporting cast Armand Assante and Michael Wincot as suspensions-bringing character of Moxica in the 2nd half of "1492 - Conquest of Paradise", when this European co-produced adventure film also-produced by director Ridley Scott and network-forcing producer Alan Goldman makes its struggle-felt toward a monumental motion picture achievement identifiable as entertaining to follow in a just-exceeded 25th anniversary presentation.© 2018 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

This could have been a great movie, but it was rendered entirely unwatchable by Gérard Depardieu. Why did the people who made this movie cast him as Columbus? A French clown? Of course the French love him, because he's one of their own, and because they love clowns. They loved Jerry Lewis, after all. But why cast a French clown as Christopher Columbus? It is downright bizarre, and it completely ruined this movie, which otherwise could have been a great movie. Among the alternatives, there is one very well-known American actor, with southern European ethnic heritage, who would have been great in this role. Even Arnold S. would have been better than the French clown. The one thing that keeps this movie from being relegated to the trash pile is the musical score.

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.

Girard Dipardeau's speech is embarrassingly bad - especially during the first 30 minutes of the film. The problem seems to be both his English and an apparent speech impediment.Although the actor looks EXACTLY like most of the drawings and paintings of Columbus and he acts well, it's really tough getting past that garbled English.Overall, the film is an ambitious modern epic - large in its scale and beautifully photographed with an abundance of moody music. However, the pace is often painfully slow and the level of violence is at times way over the top.Since there are few feature length movies out there on the topic, this becomes an almost must-see film if you're interested in Columbus, his discoveries and explorations.I do remember that in 1985 an American TV network did a 6 hour mini-series on Columbus which played much better although it focused more on the man than the mission. Do not believe that's currently available on DVD.1492 is absolutely NOT for kids under 14.