1492: Conquest of Paradise (1992) - film review

Christopher Columbus is convinced that by sailing West, he will discover a new route to the bountiful lands of the East.  Eventually, he manages to persuade the Queen of Spain to finance an expedition, and three ships set sail to look for the Indies of the West.  After a long and hazardous voyage, Columbus’ expedition reaches land – an island paradise where the natives appear friendly and cooperative.  Leaving a contingent of men behind to build a fort, Columbus returns triumphantly to Spain to raise more men to search for gold.  When he returns, Columbus soon discovers that his island paradise has become Hell...

The 500th anniversary of Columbus’ discovery of the New World certainly merited a spectacular historical production to mark the event.  Unfortunately, of the various films which were made to commemorate the event, all fell short of their objectives and most ended up being mauled, deservedly, by the critics.

Ridley Scott’s lavish production is no exception.  True, it is no where near as dire as the appalling Carry on Columbus, but it is far from being the monumental work it clearly aspires to be.   In common with much of Scott’s cinema, the film’s strength is in the quality of its visuals.  Some of the scenes are visually so powerful, so well realised, that you are momentarily compelled to forget the film’s weaker points and marvel at the talent of the film’s designers.

The problem is that that good visuals are not enough to make this film work.  This is first and foremost a historical drama, which means that characterisation, good acting and good scripting are paramount to the film’s success.  Where the film fails most notably is in the characterisation, which is only reinforced by poor dialogue and some unfortunate casting decisions.

Perhaps the biggest error was to cast Gérard Depardieu as Columbus. Depardieu is unquestionably one of the greatest, if not the greatest living actor in the world, and he certainly has the physique and stature to take on the role.  Unfortunately, his command of English was not excellent when he made this film, and whenever he speaks his performance suffers.  In some scenes, the actor is scene to be visibly struggling with some lines, and this prevents him from showing the passion which he is famous for in his French historical dramas, like Danton or Le Retour de Martin Guerre.  If the film had been made in French, it would probably be regarded by many as a masterpiece, on the strength of Depardieu’s performance alone.

Critics have also lampooned the film for its historical inaccuracies.  To a cinema audience this probably matters far less than the film’s inability to maintain its interest.  At two and half hours, the film feels far too long, relying far too much on shock visuals to keep the audience interested.  After a short while, the visceral killings become tiresome and distasteful, and only end up eroding the film’s credibility further.

The most frustrating thing about this film is that, despite all the talent that went into it, it had to end up such a mediocre work, one which does a great disservice to the historic event it attempts to commemorate.

© James Travers 2001

Write a review for this film...

What do you think of this film?