1492: Conquest Of Paradise Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Centuries before the exploration of space, there was another voyage into the unknown.
Big budget account of Christopher Columbus' discovery of the Americas. Released in 1992 to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the discovery. Shows the disastrous effects the Europeans had on the original inhabitants, and Columbus' struggle to civilize the New World.
| Gérard Depardieu | Christopher Columbus |
| Armand Assante | Sanchez |
| Sigourney Weaver | Queen Isabella I. |
| Loren Dean | Older Fernando Columbus |
| Ángela Molina | Beatrix Enriquez |
| Fernando Rey | Antonio de Marchena |
| Michael Wincott | Adrian de Moxica |
| Tchéky Karyo | Martín Alonso Pinzón |
| Kevin Dunn | Captain Mendez |
| Frank Langella | Luis de Santángel |
| Mark Margolis | Francisco de Bobadilla |
| Kario Salem | Arojaz |
| Billy L. Sullivan | Young Fernando Columbus |
| John Heffernan | Brother Buyl |
| Arnold Vosloo | Guevara |
| Ridley Scott |
6.20 out of 10 (7758 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Wake me up for the genocide
posted on 05 Jan 2009The 500th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America was celebrated in two big-budget, politically-correct films. This one is the better of two, which only goes to show just how bad the other one was. Hey, wait a minute, maybe "Christopher Columbus: The Discovery" was better after all. At least that film offered some unintentional humor. This one was an unremitting bore from start to finish. Sure, the photography is beautiful and Gerard Depardieau had the right look as good old Double-C, but the script and director Ridley Scott did nothing with either of those assets. A bore.
1492 is AWESOME!
posted on 22 Oct 2008Simply 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.
Ridiculously inaccurate
posted on 13 Sep 2008The 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.
Well worth watching!
posted on 20 Aug 2008I was impressed by the overall artistic quality of this movie. It left me with the impression of a perfectly balanced blend of unusual camera angles, pleasant timing of scenes, powerful musical score, remarkable acting, all combining to produce an interesting perspective of the pioneering adventure that changed the face of the world.Historical accuracy and political consequences of Colombus' voyage are the preserve of history books. Movies, on the other hand, are intended to convey an artistic message. As such, conquest of paradise hits the spot.Misguided criticism expressed by some viewers regarding its historical/political aspects amount to plain and simple bias, depriving their authors from enjoying a true gem of the 7th art. I must sadly say it is their loss.
A Perfect 10
posted on 18 Jul 2008(THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN MILD SPOILERS!)1492: Conquest of Paradise is one of the best movies I have ever seen. Not just a movie - a true Experience. Gerard Depardieu is great as Columbus - who else could have been better? - and I couldn't care less about his "wrong" accent, because - hey, they're speaking English! Probably people in 15th century Spain didn't speak English? Well, it's the American way of making movies, and because people speak English in just about every movie, regardless of where it happens, it doesn't bother me. In my opinion, the accent/language thing doesn't make this movie any less credible. I've seen it 10-20 times, and every time it just makes me live and feel with the characters. It gives a very credible view to the ideologies that ruled in Europe over 500 years ago - especially the blind faith to the superiority of European "civilization".The soundtrack of the movie is just beyond words - in my opinion, the best soundtrack ever made. Cinematography is truly awesome, and Ridley Scott once again proves what a great director he is. No complaints about the cast either - Sigourney Weaver as the noble and humane Queen Isabel is wonderful and Armand Assante great as slimy Sanchez. But the one who really deserves praise is Michael Wincott, who's simply stunning - and I don't mean only his looks - as the nobleman don Adrian de Moxica. He makes me love and hate Moxica at the same time. The guy looks like an angel but is such a cruel, bragging ass****. And I love the way he, at times, makes Columbus look like a total fool. No doubt who's actually the best actor in this movie.So - what can I say? Watch the movie. If you, for some strange reason, didn't like it, watch it again. Love it!
An excellent film
posted on 02 Mar 2008This 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.
Overly criticized Ridley Scott masterpiece!
posted on 27 Dec 2007This film has received way too much undo criticism by lot's of people.I can't see why? Other than maybe, Depardieu's thick french accent in English sounding awful here & there, an occasional slow moving scene, what is wrong with this movie? Nothing. The acting is top notch, the visuals are amazing, the soundtrack (lot's of people always praise just the soundtrack) is awesome, and Ridley Scott shows glimpses of his brilliance that would one day be put to use in films like, Gladiator, & Black Hawk Down. The script is fantastic with structure. While Depardieu has recieved tons of heat for him being French, and his English sounding bad, he really elevates this movie with his great passionate performance (sometimes way to passionate for my tastes). Nothing is wrong with this picture, it's quite clear, and it looks good. Columbus is brought to life. What more could you ask for?
...but did it really happen this way...
posted on 09 Jul 2007For many historical buffs of Christopher Columbus this is probably as close a depiction of the discovery of the america's as hollywood has ever done. The politically correct version. It begins in a spanish town square where Columbus is witness to an auto-da-fe, one of many public executions of heretics put on for the benefit of the faithful all courtesy of the spanish inquisition. As far as religious tolerance goes it was a not a good time or place to be around. From that scene one wonders if Columbus is suddenly filled with the desire to discover new worlds where such cruel acts are not necessary and religious tolerance is an accepted fact. But alas, no. With the royal patronage and sponsorship of Queen Isabella herself Columbus, here played incongruously by Gerard Depardieu, is of to discover a new continent out west. Except as we all know he doesn't quite make it and has to settle for an unknown island somewhere of the coast of central america. Following several return trips to Spain where he is feted by everyone he is asked to return and set up a colony, a little spain if you will. The idea is also to spread the word of God to the indigenous populations hopefully with their acquiescence. But not all goes according to plan and the experiment fails miserably and Columbus must return home to ignominy and personal abuse from his enemies at the spanish court. The rest is history.The film I believe was a faithful attempt to portray the conditions and circumstances of the 15th century that our main character had to live under. At the 500th anniversary of Columbus' discovery there was much opposition from american indigenous groups who saw no reason to celebrate and saw Columbus' feat as the beginning of the end for their history and culture. Not quite the truth but pretty close. I would tend to support them in that stance as the later part of the film shows in its depiction of the conquistadores subsequent treatment of the native populations. Also a matter of record. As a film there are a few outstanding flaws. Casting being one of them. Depardieu and Assante should have changed roles. I kept seeing Gerard as a frenchman as did everyone else. Sigourney Weaver gave ample dignity and grit and staunchness to her role of Queen Isabella who in reality was no simpering female sovereign. Like I said a few flaws but it will have to do for now until some better director comes along.
Beautiful and sad
posted on 13 May 20071492, CONQUEST OF PARADISE (what a great title !) is a breathtakingly beautiful film in its direction, its photography, its music and its actors. But it is also very sad and moving in its depiction of, almost literally, "the conquest of paradise". It focuses both on Colombus' life and also on the consequences of his adventure. I highly recommend it.
Looked good, boring story
posted on 10 Apr 2007This was a very pretty movie, but the characters were agonizingly formulaic and the plot was predicatable. Also, I thought it down played the complexity of the situation by making people distinctly good or evil. What would have been of more interest to me is to show the conflict that went on within each person who was involved in the voyage and the beginning of the colonization.
My interest sank(sorry!)
posted on 13 Jan 2007This film was pretty bad. The acting stank, it dragged out too long, and they got the history all wrong. They try to give Columbus 20th century values, and it just looks bad. I remember the scene where Columbus was showing his son an orange and the horizon and says "Its round." Well of course its round, its an orange!
An entertaining history lesson
posted on 04 Jan 2007"1492: Conquest of Paradise (1992)" tells the story of Christopher Columbus on the quincentennial of his first voyage to the New World. A 2.5 hour historical adventure epic, this film is a tour-de-force by Depardieu (Columbus) with all the spectacle, sumptuousness, and trappings of witch burnings and castles and sailing ships and skullduggery and intrigues and more. Adhering to the history as it is known while exercising license over details as required for entertainment, "1492....", not unlike Columbus himself, probably did not receive the respect or recognition it deserved. The film is a sprawling Hollywoodized action/adventure history lesson; a sort of visual oxymoron or exercise in mutual exclusion albeit a fitting tribute to the visionary and adventurer which is intrinsically timeless. A worthwhile watch for anyone interested in Columbus and a must see for Depardieu fans. (B)
Awful
posted on 02 Nov 2006What a bad movie. In the worst tradition of Hollywood, this film is full of cliches and simplifications. Every character's actions and personality can be predicted the second s/he appears on the screen. The past filtered through political correctness and ignorance looks very black and white. The queen is independent and intelligent, the nobles are greedy and selfish, the churchmen are a bunch of fanatical, ignorant liars. Anything else? Oh yes, I cannot believe that Depardieu agreed to play in this pathetic excuse for a movie.
Good action, Bad History.
posted on 13 Aug 2006I have rarely seen a big budget historical film filled with so many inaccuracies. One would think that a film of that caliber could have hired a writer who would have known that Columbus left Hispaniola with only two ships, since the Sta. Maria was destroyed. The film shows 3 ships departing. There is never a mention of a third or fourth voyage, nor of the discovery of Terra Firme. Further, there is not a single mention of the name Hispaniola (or La Española) in the film. The dramatic scene of landfall at Guanahaní is ruined by the appearance of the island. Watling Island is low and scrub covered, not hilly and forested. The birds on the island and the fauna are more proper of Costa Rica. The scene of the death of a crewmember from a snake bite is a comical sham. Not only were are there no poisonous snakes in the Caribbean, there are no snakes at all on Watling. The budget of the film could have bought a lot more! What a waste...
Michael Wincott is gorgeous in this!!!
posted on 23 Jul 2006I just love this movie because of the great,mesmerizing acting of Michael Wincott, his character is far better worked out than the one of Gérard Depardieu - his Columbus is just a hopeless seeker of something that eventually does not come off in the end at all...and in the end you cannot do otherwise but pity him - but mostly for his naivety ( that men can create paradise on earth, of course they cannot ). On the other hand you have that enchanting devil Moxica who knows what the world is about ( i.e.about money and power ) and what is funny is the fact that these qualities are Columbus ´s ends as well but he has to wrap them up in idealistic visions that cannot succeed. The noble Moxica role was just cut out for this wonderful actor and in spite of the fact that this character is given such little space it is enough to look at him and see - that the character is alive and absolutely seductive.He knows very well that men who came to conquer paradise are not good ( and neither is he, quite the opposite )but he lets us know that once a paradise is conquered - it cannot be a paradise anymore, no matter how noble was the idea to create a paradise out of a jungle in the beginning...and from history it is known that these conquered regions were often closer to hell than to a paradise and noble visions and ideas so many times turned into genocide... Through the whole acting of Michael Wincott and especially in the jungle cliff scene we learn that Columbus ´s dream just could not work out. Should have got Oscar for supporting role - I watched him many times in this and just cannot get enough... Worth seeing especially because of him, too bad that he does not do many films to be seen at.
hit and miss
posted on 23 Jun 2006This is a film which has good and bad points - the good, it has some excellent scenes you remember for a long time (the garotting ones seem to stay in the mind), it has Depardieu, it has Weaver, it has the music of Vangelis - the bad, Depardieu in English always lacks some of the Gallic charm of his French roles, it is a bit long-winded, it perhaps tries too hard. Not a Blade Runner classic type, but a good attempt.
Great Historical account , with minor inaccuracies
posted on 20 May 2009As 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.