Reviews & Ratings for
1492: Conquest of Paradise More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Index

74 reviews in total

---

46 out of 56 people found the following review useful:
The Best Columbus Film Ever Made, 16 October 2005

Author: dentonsfarm from USA

Ridley Scott's masterpiece, 1492: A Conquest of Paradise, is a visually compelling film and well acted. Those who gave low viewer ratings in the viewer comments obviously do not see the beauty of epic films. Epics are supposed to be kind of lengthy. It is, to me, the best depiction of Columbus I have ever seen. True, the lead actor is a Frenchman, but if you set that aside you can see that he looks and acts like what one would picture Columbus to be. Durring the sailing scenes it almost made you feel as though you were sailing along with Columbus. I think that the people who are down on the historical accuracies and "inaccuracies" of this film do not cease to realize that Columbus was out for more than spices from India but also a conquest to spread the Gospel to the people of the Far East. The other inaccuracies of the film have only been brought to light years after the films release. They discovered that Columbus was probably not from Genova.

---

41 out of 56 people found the following review useful:
a good movie, 15 October 2003

Author: gayromeo2000 from Bergen, norway

I think this movie got a score it doesn't deserve. First of all the story is about an adventurer who discovered America and who was rejected the honour for his efforts, it is all in the movie. It shows how Columbus went from being a hero to a nobody, it was his sons who had to fight for his honor after his death. The movie really presents this perfectly, all from Columbus' dreams until after he discovered America, got mocked and became a laughing stock. So this is not the typical hero movie you have seen, but it is rather true to its real story, at least as true as you can get in a movie lasting 2 hours from a story which goes over a period of 30 years out of an extraordinary man's life. The other movie made the same year about Columbus was more the typical hero movie, where it ended when Columbus discovered America. And the music in this movie is so good, it catches the moods in this movie so great, this music is as perfect to its story as the music in 2001. I want to recommend people to see this movie again and this time with another view, and try to remember what their seeing.

---

34 out of 45 people found the following review useful:
Great Historical account , with minor inaccuracies, 23 February 2005

Author: leftyguns2 from Woodbridge Twp NJ

As an avid historical buff I definitely consider this film a must see.

Unlike other film which are simply based on history, Conquest was more realistic than others. In most aspects anyway. I will discuss to some degree where I feel that "artistic license" was used.

The scene where victims of the inquisition, were executed many of them Jews was quite accurate. Contrary to popular belief, most were strangled before set on fire. The film showed that in detail.

The encounter with the natives took place on the beach according to most accounts, not inland as in the film , This is one of the first inaccuracies.

Another inaccuracy was that Sanchez , brilliantly portrayed by Armand Assante. According to histirical texts went on the voyage. His assignment to safeguard th e Spanish crown's share of any riches seized. another historical inaccuracy.

Later came the Moxica character portrays by Michael Wincott. He cut of the arm of a native who hadn't found any gold. This was very accurate the natives were given quotas of gold the had to find and give to the Spaniards as tribute. Those who didn't comply were often mutilated. Also many of the early colonists rose in rebellion against Columbus.

But the most profound dialogue in the entire movie was when Friar Rojas mentioned to Sanchez, referring to Columbus " what a waste of a life" Sanchez replies " If either of our names are ever remembered it will only be because of his" A must see for anyone who appreciates history.

---

42 out of 62 people found the following review useful:
Masterpiece with a Fatal Flaw!, 18 September 2002

Author: OttoVonB

The flaw is Gerard Depardieu's English: too often does it undermine an otherwise magnificent movie. Why would I go through the effort? Because I speak perfect French and when you watch this film dubbed (and the dubbing is perfect, since it is Depardieu and Karyo dubbing themselves!) you realize what an awesome one it is. Ironically, I cann't imagine anyone other than Depardieu in the role, except maybe Russell Crowe (but at the time he was an unknown Hollywood!). The script is fantastic (sure it lingers in some places but it all happened SLOWLY in those days. One could argue that seven Samurai and Lawrence of Arabia are slow in places, well go rent a Steven Seagal picture, for all the good it will do you!), the performances are great (though betrayed in the English version by accents) and two combined elements set this appart from any other film in existence: the symphonic mix of photography and music! Ridley Scott has always had an awesome visual flair, but in that sense this must be the top of his game (yes, even counting Blade Runner, Legend and Gladiator). Then there's that score by Vangelis! I love movie music and always pay attention to it, but I have yet to hear more astonishing a theme (or any tune of the score, the whole CD is a masterpiece, unlike most of it's peers) than that of 1492: Conquest of Paradise. So if you master any other language than English, see this, on a big screen with good sound. That's when a flawed epic turns into a true work of art!

---

23 out of 29 people found the following review useful:
probably my favourite movie ever, 27 November 2005

Author: damienmuldoon from Ireland

In 1992, the 500th anniversary of Columbus's arrival in the New World was marked with a deluge of movies, documentaries and T.V. dramas. Not only is this the best of those commemorative re-tellings, it is also a lesson in how good historical movies should be made. Ridley Scott's direction and Gerard Depardu's leading performance gives us a genuine feeling of what must have faced Columbus and his crew as they set off on a voyage that, in their time, was more dangerous than space travel. This movie does more than tell their story however. It recreates an epoch in a way that few other historical dramas ever have. Fifteenth century Spain is every bit as vivid as the unchartered jungles of Latin America. And it is a testament to Scott's skill as a director that he beautifully contrasts the splendor of Queen Isabella's court with the insect infested, monsoon ridden "New World". And yet we also see that while the hand of civilization has made Isabella's Spain so resplendent, it has also tainted it with corruption. No such corruption exists in the virgin forests of San Slavador. Not until the European's arrive that is.

Every single scene in this film is loaded with symbolism. Behind the dialog and interaction of characters, there is an abundant subtext that just craves to be explored. It is a film that you come to appreciate the more times you see it and come to understand better, the older you grow. Critics have been unenthusiastic and even dismissive of it. Don't dare listen to them until you have watched it at least three times yourself. It would also be careless of me to comment on this film without mentioning the brilliant score by Vangellis. Hovering between the atmospheric and the pure scary, it blends with the general aura of the film brilliantly. Pure magic.

---

31 out of 48 people found the following review useful:
History is an orange for some, 24 April 2005

Author: drlarue-1 from United States

I first saw this movie in 1992 after hearing that I had missed something special from a friend who did see it in the theater. As one always interested in history since childhood, I looked into the history portrayed in this excellent film. Actually, it is adopted from Columbus's son's own memoirs and what is factually known. Columbus did strike out to find Asia, we all know that. But he actually did become idealistic and wish to create a New World for those weary of the old - and many were. This theme continued right into the development of the U.S., which may (or may not) be the best example of that intention. What many do not realize is how much this history intersects with the Knights Templar's search for a place to headquarter permanently after loosing it's hold in Europe in 1307-14. Sound crazy? Check the details! In Spain, the Templars were converted into an order called "Knights of Christ" and retained that famous cross that everyone is familiar with as present on the Santa Maria, but with no understanding. Prince Henry the Navigator was one and Columbus was made one. There is new (old) evidence that French Templars who settled in Scotland after 1314 made it to what is now Rhode Island (two archaeological evidences exist there, as well as evidence in Scotland). Some theorize (and this is much more theory than the aforementioned) that the hole on Oak Island was a stash created by the French Templars of the mysterious treasury that never has quite been accounted for and has given rise to numerous theories of Templars treasures in France and elsewhere. (Even the book - The Da Vinci Code utilizes parts of this foil in its plot). If you traced it truly, the diligent researcher will find that the Templars had its continuance as the Freemasonic brotherhood. The U.S. was founded by intention by French, American, and yes, British Masons. A strange coincidence? What has this to do with Columbus? Am I way off the subject. Well, no,... I would argue. That this movie is a visual and auditory masterpiece is without question. That the acting is everywhere from adequate to brilliant, (yes, who could play Moxica better, and how can anyone seeing this movie in English be so arrogant to complain that Depardieu has a French accent??) Columbus used the plans of Da Vinci (is a light going on?) for an ideal city for his ideal New World. That he had problems with his ideals becoming reality is more than commonplace for anyone who has tried to do something extraordinary, but especially when power is involved. His plan had to fail, even the weather was against it. No one in Europe understood hurricanes then.

I could go on, but there are dozens of points of historical discussion that this film prompts, including a thorough study of the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformation, the history of "Witch Trials" anti-Semitism in Europe, The Thirty Year War and the Wars of Religion, The Age of Reason, the rise of Science, etc., etc., etc! What a film packed with potential historical departures this is!! I pity those who miss all this richness.

When I read such negative reviews by those who claim the history is all wrong, I wonder what stereotype of history they think they were taught. It is no surprise to me that they seem to think the scene with the orange was about an orange! They didn't pay attention to this film long enough to understand the simplest scene! I gather they don't really pay much attention to history either, but have popular historical assumptions that they have been fed or imagined. This is a film that ought to be shown in every classroom in the New World as well as Europe, if nowhere else. And for those who claim they were bored - rent an Arnold shoot-em up and stay home during elections, your opinion is just that valuable.

---

19 out of 26 people found the following review useful:
1492 is AWESOME!, 14 April 2001

Author: Chris997 from Crystal Lake, IL

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Simply an amazing look into the life of Christopher Columbus. We discover who he was, what made him tick, we see what he accomplished and how it really backfired on him. This film shows us largely what Columbus had to do to accomplish his discovery of the New World. It shows us that Columbus didn't know where he would wind up, some thought that they would fall off the edge of the world. Columbus didn't seem to think so, he already knew that the world was probably round. What he did not know was that they were not venturing on a new found, easy way to the Asian continent. Instead they were headed to an unfamiliar place, a place full of surprises, wonder and beauty. A gorgeous, lush, tropical, plant filled paradise. The scene where Columbus comes in contact with a new kind of people, the Indians, is simply well filmed and photographed. That scene captured the surprise Columbus had when he discovered that he was merely just a guest, in a foreign place. Somebody already intruding on a land that has already been conquered, by the Indians who inhabit Columbus's dream. It soon turns into his own nightmare, as he trys to accomplish his dream and the natives rebel against him and his men. Near the end of the film a hurricane hit's his New World, basically surprising him and shattering his dreams. Even before the hurricane the film demonstrates to us that his dream was already being ruined. Moxica a spanish nobleman who tallied along with Columbus on his second voyage back to the New World, basically causes havoc for him there. As a result, there are wars and battles that brew, murder, Indians become his slaves, everything falls apart for Columbus. The film not only captures the essence of Columbus's hardtimes, but it also captures some of the remarkable things he did accomplish. Like the raising of a bell in the New World, his first voyage through the vast Atlantic Ocean, his friendship with an Indian native named Utapan, the love he had for his wife and his kids. This film is a special film with excellent performances from Gerard Depardieu who plays the man Columbus. Also the supporting cast is great (Sigourney Weaver, Michael Wincott, Armand Assante, Fernando Rey, Tcheky Karyo). Ridley Scott who directed Gladiator, Blade Runner, Alien, Thelma and Louise, hit's a home run here and wins. Vangelis's musical score is excellent and adds an extra sense of wonder, to a film that is already full of it.

---

14 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
Ridiculously inaccurate, 11 September 2007

Author: mid-levels from Hong Kong

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The real story of Columbus is an adventure story with plenty of plot twists and interesting characters. So there was no need to fabricate history in this film. We have Columbus' journals that tell us what happened when he landed in the new world and the events that followed. This film set an agenda to make Columbus out to be a visionary who against the odds made good and the only problem was that everyone else didn't have his insight. Ridiculous! Columbus did something quite amazing in sailing to the new world but that doesn't mean that he didn't have serious flaws. For one, in the film he speaks about a "New World" but Columbus died believing he actually had found a passage to Asia so for him there was nothing new about it. The first encounter with the natives is also ridiculous in the film. In Columbus' journal we see that naked villagers came out onto the beach and that Columbus claimed the land for Spain and then took out his sword and tested the natives' knowledge of weapons. They had none and Columbus actually cut them. In the movie, Columbus is just walking through the jungle and he is approached by hostile natives ready to fire their arrows at him. He tells his men who are about to open fire to stop and that they must act peacefully. So Columbus becomes the peacemaker when in reality the natives were peaceful and he drew his sword on them. There are tons of these moments in the movie that make this movie a joke in terms of history. If directors are going to use real historical figures they need to represent them accurately. If they want to imagine or reimagine the colonial experience then they should use fictional characters.

---

19 out of 28 people found the following review useful:
An excellent film, 10 January 1999

Author: Charles Jr from Melbourne, Australia

This is a great film, I really enjoyed watching it. We watched a small amount at school, and I just had to go out and borrow the video to watch it all. Gérard did a great job of playing Christopher Columbus, this film is also very informative and I did learn from it. I would recommend that everyone go and get this film on video and watch it.

---

13 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Beautiful but vacuous, 22 June 2008

Author: TrevorAclea from London, England

The perils of working towards an anniversary and trying to beat a rival project to the screen are all too evident in 1492 – Conquest of Paradise. It's easily Ridley Scott's most beautiful looking film, designed and shot with real love and care. With almost every shot gorgeous enough to take down and frame, it's like walking through an art gallery at times. Unfortunately that's never enough to compensate for a terrible screenplay by Roselyne Bosch that seems to have been written on the bus to work and stumbles from cliché to cliché. Carry On Columbus has better dialog at times, not to mention a better grasp of history. Worst of all, it throws away the real dramatic potential in Columbus' life for an unconvincing slice of class warfare – wouldn't you know it, it was really all those pesky upper class Euro trash aristo types like Michael Wincott that screwed up paradise, not Columbus' own incompetence and incredible cruelty – while painting him as the 'chosen one.' At one point when the Inquisition ask our compassionate visionary if he is comparing himself to Christ, there's even a dramatic pause as he thinks it over in that he-is-you-know tipping the nod to the audience way. The result is a film that wants to be up there with Herzog's Spanish nutter in the jungle movies but is too expensive to allow its protagonist to go all Klaus Kinski on it and run the risk of alienating the audience, leaving us with more excuses and special pleading than drama.

Strangely, no-one in front of or behind the camera seems to notice just how bad the script is ("Excuse me, but you're the only queen I know," Columbus tells Isabella, soliciting the even more unlikely reply "You're the only navigator I know, so that makes us even."), and both performances and technical standards are all worthy of a much better film. Still, sometimes looking good is good enough – but not good enough for 154 minutes. It's a shame that they didn't read Kirkpatrick Sale's excellent historical biography instead of just using the title.

---

---

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user reviews	Your vote history