Christopher Columbus overcomes intrigue at the Spanish court and convinces Queen Isabella that his plan to reach the East by sailing west is practical.Christopher Columbus overcomes intrigue at the Spanish court and convinces Queen Isabella that his plan to reach the East by sailing west is practical.Christopher Columbus overcomes intrigue at the Spanish court and convinces Queen Isabella that his plan to reach the East by sailing west is practical.
IMDb RATING
6.0/10
539
YOUR RATING
- Writers
- Rafael Sabatini(novel "Christopher Columbus")
- Muriel Box
- Sydney Box
- Stars
- Writers
- Rafael Sabatini(novel "Christopher Columbus")
- Muriel Box
- Sydney Box
- Stars
- Writers
- Rafael Sabatini(novel "Christopher Columbus")
- Muriel Box
- Sydney Box
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaFredric March collapsed from heatstroke one day while filming on location in Barbados.
- GoofsIn the film, Columbus seems to realize that he never landed in India, whereas in real life, he never realized it. He also talks constantly about having found "new worlds", as if he knew that he had discovered America.
- Quotes
Father Perez: I see you're a scholar, my son, as well as a traveler.
Christopher Columbus: Certainly a traveler, Father. I've sailed as far north as Iceland, as far south as Guinea, and eastward to the Golden Horn.
Father Perez: But that is to have reached the limits of the World.
Christopher Columbus: Of the known world? Yes, Father, but the actual world... not by a thousand leagues.
Father Perez: How can you say that - never having seen it?
Christopher Columbus: Have you ever seen Heaven or Hell?
Father Perez: We have sound reasons for believing they exist.
Christopher Columbus: I have sound reasons too.
Father Perez: What are they?
Christopher Columbus: The same as yours, Father, and revelations to which I can add cosmography and mathematics.
- ConnectionsFeatured in The Last Cigarette (1999)
Review
Featured review
Like all films on Columbus, it's all a lot of hooey.
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!
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!
helpful•2214
- planktonrules
- Dec 9, 2010
Details
Box office
- 1 hour 39 minutes
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
