Diagonaldi Very well executed

RyothChatty ridiculous rating

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

zenithspider I suggest everyone who reads this goes and watches History Buffs review of this movie, he tears apart this disgusting monstrosity.I'll keep this brief. This movie is DISGUSTING!!! It's plagued with inaccuracies, exaggerations, and down right lies! This movie makes Christopher Columbus out to be some sort of visionary, a man who tries his best to keep peace. When in actual fact he sold off native women as sex toys, employed punishments of dismemberment, enslaved the native population, and exploited them to no end.This movie frames his men as the true villains. And trust me they were horrible people. Doing such awful things as having bets about who could decapitate a man with one swipe first, and even throwing babies into rivers as the laugh. (I am seriously not joking there is actual accounts of this)But this was all whole hardheartedly supported by Columbus himself. Now there are a lot of minor inaccuracies plaguing this movie as well, but the review I mentioned goes into detail about this.So in short. This movie is a disgusting cowardly mockery of a real genocide. It frames a man on par with Hitler as a brave kind hearted visionary. Whilst pathetically covering up the real horrors this inhuman monster committed. And for those of you who claim hes just a victim of his time. You should know one of his men became a monk after witnessing what Columbus did. And that he was imprisoned in his own time.

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.

duraflex Girard Dipardeau's speech is embarrassingly bad - especially during the first 30 minutes of the film. The problem seems to be both his English and an apparent speech impediment.Although the actor looks EXACTLY like most of the drawings and paintings of Columbus and he acts well, it's really tough getting past that garbled English.Overall, the film is an ambitious modern epic - large in its scale and beautifully photographed with an abundance of moody music. However, the pace is often painfully slow and the level of violence is at times way over the top.Since there are few feature length movies out there on the topic, this becomes an almost must-see film if you're interested in Columbus, his discoveries and explorations.I do remember that in 1985 an American TV network did a 6 hour mini-series on Columbus which played much better although it focused more on the man than the mission. Do not believe that's currently available on DVD.1492 is absolutely NOT for kids under 14.

Tim Kidner I don't know whether it was because Gerard Depardieu had an uncanny resemblance to Christopher Columbus or just that he was the highest profile 'European' actor available at the time. Was no Spaniard an option? Antonio Banderas was still then doing minor Spanish language films with the likes of Pedro Almodovar. Whichever way, Depardieu was the wrong man and seriously flawed the film; his strong accent mumbling important lines into incomphrehensibility.Aside of that, Ridley Scott's follow up to the very different Thelma & Louise is a sweeping and majestic nautical tale, Christopher Columbus' historically monumental voyage of discovery of the America's. It's about lands found, new peoples, conniving and jealous royalty, disease and death and, of course a new continent. A lavish picture that cost $40,000,000 but only scooped back less than a quarter of that, it has all the trademarks that we now expect from Scott. Though, I, as a photographer really hate his use of coloured filters to create pink or sepia skies - SO 1970/80's! The Costa Rican and Spanish locations do look ravishing, though.At just under 2.5 hours it's fairly epic, but manageable and the cast, largely do their bits well, especially the south American Indians, who really give the film realism and bite. Those expecting a nice family film should be warned in that, with a certificate 15, there's quite a bit of strong violence toward the end, when the natives and visitors have more than a few bloody skirmishes.The music, from keyboard legend, Vangelis, is one of the best parts and to my mind, one of his best scores, certainly up there with Chariots Of Fire. The theme, in particular, is very rousing and symphonic.I have to admit, that I didn't even know that this film existed until I found Vangelis' album, it's so unknown. We all know of 'Bladerunner' and 'Gladiator', but this must have been such a flop that it now passes under the TV scheduler's radar. I'm glad that I managed to buy the DVD cheaply, now and glad also that I watched it - good, but far from great.