Filipe Neto
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.
utgard14
Ridley Scott biopic about Christopher Columbus' discovery of the Americas. Yeah I know, lots of things wrong with that. Save the white knuckle rage for something that matters, folks. Anyway the historical inaccuracies of the picture don't bother me. What does bother me is that the movie is dry and slow with an unintelligible performance from Gerard Depardieu in the lead. Seriously, can anyone understand half of what he is saying in this? Also, Sigourney Weaver isn't very good as Isabella and Armand Assante is...well, Armand Assante. So proceed with caution on that. It's really a ho-hum affair that seems to go on forever. Since we already know the story, it really tries your patience after awhile. Looks good, though.
Armand
its virtue is not to be an impressive historical movie or a great show. but demonstration of high level work of a really ambitious/dedicated team. the direction, the music, the acting, the images, the script are a homage and a beautiful demonstration of talent and translation of essence of a period. a film about Columbus who is more than a way to remind a moment but who desires defines the roots of period. it is not perfect and that fact does it ideal prey for critics who defines it as too expensive effort for a not deep convincing result. but it is only pure show. not entertainment in basic definition, not a precise documentary but proof of a great embroidery from an unique artistic circle. that fact does it more than film of a moment. but an adventure for each viewer. so, a pure show.
Prismark10
1992 marked the 500th anniversary of the 'discovery' of the Americas. It meant there were a plethora of documentaries and articles on Columbus. Some were critical, he discovered a continent that had 1 million people living there, might had been discovered by others before and he found the wrong place as he thought it was India. Ultimately many of the original inhabitants suffered from his intervention.1492 from Ridley Scott tries to makes sense of this contradictions. It is a gloriously flawed film, great art direction, production and music. A multi national cast with Depardieu speaking his lines with a heavy French accent but bringing presence. Scott scored with his supporting cast of villains, all of them hiss-able as vipers on the head of Medusa. You know early on things are going to turn ugly for the native Americans.Scott likes his history and admires Islamic history and you see early on when it comes to Reconquista when Moorish structure are destroyed and lost forever that the Spanish aristocrats are not appreciative of the arts and noble causes but only care about the monarchy, church and gold.Columbus is painted as a romantic adventurer, maybe misguided even naive. Depardieu cannot quiet hold the film together, frankly his English is not good enough. Its still a bold attempt at filmaking but we lack the real, more complex and the more greedy Columbus.
AD
