As a history teacher, I generally avoid film depictions of Christopher Columbus because they bear little similarity to real life. The biggest problem is that although he became famous, little is actually known about the man--especially before his famed voyages to the New World. So, much of the 'fact' in the film is fiction. In addition, the films also perpetuate myth--stories often retold so many times people just assume it to be true. THe sad fact is that we have no idea what he looked like and aren't even positive about where he was born. When the film begins, it says that during Columbus' time people assumed the world was flat--something practically no sane person at the time thought! They could see that the Earth had a curved horizon and the reason few traveled across the Atlantic had to do with a previous lack of navigational tools as well as it being completely unknown. People just did NOT think they'd fall off the world--a myth perpetuated by a mostly fictional history book by Washington Irving that purported to be a biography of the man.Today we are in an age of deconstruction of Columbus. Whereas in 1949, he was practically depicted as super-human, today he's seen as a genocidal maniac. Neither depiction is quite correct. There is a lot to admire as well as dislike about the man--and it's a darn shame that no film I know of even tries to give a balanced account of what we know about this skilled sailor.So why, then, did I watch this film? Well, I like Frederic March and think he's a bit underrated as an actor. Even a second-rate film (which this clearly is) with March is worth watching. There are some nice qualities about the film--the costumes and sets are reasonably accurate. As for the acting, it is a bit stilted and dull. Perhaps they talked this way back then, I am no expert on this, but the people seemed a bit too constricted and formal throughout. There were a few exceptions--the jolly fat guy was pretty cool. But even with a few decent performances, nothing can change the fact that the film is wildly inaccurate and rather dull. Plus, it perpetuates the idea that Columbus discovered America--omitting the fact that natives had discovered it first and the Vikings had been there several centuries earlier. Of course, there are several other possible expeditions that MIGHT have made it there before Columbus as well, but there just isn't enough space here to discuss the recent Chinese claim or other ideas that most likely will never be proved.By the way, the print shown on Turner Classic Movies is strongly sepia-toned. I am not sure if this was intentional--it might just need restoration!

I'm so sick of the PC and multicultural framework of all art today that it's good to see a rendition of the Columbus history told unashamedly from the viewpoint of Western hegemonists (my perspective)regardless of its obvious weaknesses as a film. March is a typical American actor who projects his own personna no matter what the part (Anthony Adverse or Phillip of Macedonia). It limited him but I happen to like the personna as did many other moviegoers. If I'm not mistaken his age is about right for Columbus at this time. It could have been more exciting but what is exciting is the whole enterprise that results in the discovery of the New World because of the persistence and vision of one man. Many earthshaking developments take years or months of plodding to come to fruition whether the Columbus landfall, the landing on the moon or the curing of polio. It's worth watching just to hear the great score.

I'd always pictured CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS as an adventurous young man, but here he's played by the very stoic FREDRIC MARCH in the prime of middle-age. Why is it March always seemed too old for all of his major roles, beginning with ANTHONY ADVERSE.This is a very respectable version of the Columbus story, but a bit plodding and dull when it should come to life with more vigor. There's an almost textbook quality about the script that takes forty-five minutes to set Columbus on his voyage after much confrontational verbal exercises at the Spanish court with Queen Isabella (FLORENCE ELDRIDGE) and FRANCIS L. SULLIVAN as a nobleman who opposes the voyage. Strangely enough, this portion of the film is the most interesting.Production values are splendid but there's a muted quality to the color of the TCM print I viewed. FREDRIC MARCH is competent in the title role, but never quite assumes the mantle of the courageous and determined leader of men with his daring new ideas. It's easy to see why his crewmen become skeptical and suspicious midway during the voyage. Their growing doubts are understandable after so many days at sea.Summing up: Interesting enough but would have been a more successful film with a more vital performer in the title role rather than the uninspired portrayal of its tired looking leading man whose work here is rather pallid.For all the attempts to bring it to life, it remains a "flat" version rather than a fully rounded one.

Being an Aussie, I don't know the story of Christopher Columbus in much detail, so I was able to enjoy this movie as a Fredric March fan first and foremost. Just one question - were the natives *really* that accommodating? Definitely an engaging tale, and not all set on the high seas. The first half hour or so, in the Queen's court, had some of the best scenes, though the ending fell flat and just kinda "happened". All up - a jolly good show!