SnoopyStyle
Christopher Columbus (Georges Corraface) is searching for support of his mission of exploration. He is certain of one sea connecting Europe to Marco Polo's discovery. The Portugese rejects him. King Ferdinand (Tom Selleck) and Queen Isabella (Rachel Ward) of Spain want to spread Christianity. Beatriz (Catherine Zeta-Jones) falls for Columbus. Inquisitor Father Tomas de Torquemada (Marlon Brando) interrogates him and his quest is rejected for countering religious doctrine. After getting royal acceptance, Columbus is able to convince doubting sailors and Martin Pinzon (Robert Davi) to support the voyage. Columbus faces sabotage, deprivation, brutality, and native revolt.The story is fit for a historical drama. There are good bits and pieces but the overall is not that good. It looks inferior. This came out around the same time as "1492: Conquest of Paradise". Neither are terribly good movies but at least 1492 has the look of an epic. Tom Selleck has no business playing the Spanish king. He's basically Magnum, P.I. with a jewel bedazzled coat. It's laughable. By comparison, Marlon Brando is nowhere near as bad. Georges Corraface is functional but he isn't the biggest name. There are a couple of familiar faces like Zeta-Jones and Benicio Del Toro. There is limitation to the intensity. This is not quite good enough.
HistoryFilmBuff
Corny, goofy, and with some of the worst non-acting you ever saw: It doesn't get much worse than Tom Selleck as an effete fop. Try and hear him say "Por-too-gahl" without busting out laughing.Or Rachel Ward playing Queen Isabela as a shallow minded slut who gives Columbus money because she was horny for him. Seriously, this film claims that! Try and reconcile that with the real life history: Isabella was a sharp, powerful queen who presided over the uniting of her nation, and one of the most devout Catholics to ever be on the throne. There's good reason she's called Isabela La Catolica and the Defender of the Faith.And Columbus as a supposed charming rake? (Actually this actor comes across as a conceited ass in love with his own reflection.)Oh yeah, and showing his wife as a hot young thing...Columbus married a widow older than him, for her money.Please! Columbus was a driven, obsessed religious fanatic who thought the world was coming to an end in hislifetime, a believer in The End Times who thought he would play a role in Arrmageddon.Which, of course, is the worst thing the film does. It whitewashes genocide, doesn't show Columbus as the man who killed at least 800,000 Taino Indians, chopping off hand if they didn't give him enough gold, handing over Indian girls for his soldiers to rape as rewards for jobs well done, feeding Indian bodies to his dogs, and personally raping Indian women and enslaving both Indians and Africans. And he went to prison in Spain, for falsely imprisoning and torturing Spaniards.Skip this travesty and see the far better films, Surviving Columbus or Columbus Didn't Discover Us. And unlike this sanitized fiction, these two films are the truth. And you can find them for free on Youtube.
Victor Field
The 500th anniversary of C. Columbus's voyage to what he thought was India was deemed worthy of two major motion pictures (no, "Carry On Columbus" doesn't count). The trouble is that at the time there was much general apathy in the world as a whole about the whole thing, as evidenced by the lack of box office success for both this and the comparatively better "1492: Conquest Of Paradise" - neither was much to write home about, but "Christopher Columbus: The Discovery" was the worse of the two by far, and it's fortunate that Alexander Salkind will be remembered for "Superman" instead of this (it was his last production).In pretty much every department from casting (Tom Selleck as the King of Spain. Why?) through writing ("Admiral Colon, you have won our respect and our admiration. Now where's my gold?" Note: In spite of the title, the legendary seafarer is correctly referred to as Cristobal Colon throughout... except when someone calls him "Christopher Columbus" at one point) to "special" effects, on top of an ending that leaves a really bad taste in the mouth - we cut from the misery left behind in the New World to our hero exulting as Cliff Eidelman's wildly over-the-top music bursts forth - the movie's embarrassing, shoddy and offensive. Not that the other Columbus movie didn't have its own faults (the exceptional dullness is only one of its problems) but at least Ridley Scott and Co. studied it with a bit more depth than this tosh.Funny how Catherine Zeta-Jones never mentions this one.
Colonel Ted
Columbus must have turned in his grave because this is one of the worst films of the '90s, devoid of anything that could make it work on every level. It's a very old-fashioned adventure story, except in the old days they knew how to make film's like these. Director John Glen (who made some of the James Bond films) badly handles what little action there is and his direction is uninspired and unintentionally camp. The film looks like it was made in the '70s and there is no trace of style at all. The scenes on the islands with the Indians are a hoot. Production quality is poor (the ships look like they were made from cardboard), but that nothing compared to the terrible acting. Selleck and Ward as Ferdinand and Isabella are terrible, as is Corraface as Columbus, and the only pain Brando is giving out as Torqumada is by his mumbling performance. The script is based entirely in cliché terms and ideas are half hatched. It also bares a worrying resemblance to Carry on Columbus. The editing is some of the worst ever done for a film with scenes put together in slap-dash fashion with no sense of time or coherence. An object lesson in how NOT to make a film on every level. It even fails on its simplest level: to portray the courage and vision that these men had to cross the "ocean of darkness". Ridley Scott's 1492: Conquest of Paradise is so much better in every way that it doesn't do justice to be mentioned it in the same review.
AD
