1492: Conquest of Paradise
(B- or 2.5/4 stars)
'1492: Conquest of Paradise' is one of director Ridley Scott's most ambitious films -- a grandiose epic covering the world's most famous 15th c. explorer, Christopher Columbus. With ambition always comes the possibility of failure. And indeed, back in 1992, this movie did not garner many good reviews or light up the box office. Having said that, though it's a bit overreaching in its scope and contains an uneven screenplay ... there are visceral & majestic elements in this film which makes me tip my review to the positive side; just barely.
Italian sailor Christopher Columbus (French actor, Gerard Depardieu) tried to persuade Spain's authorities to send him to explore lands located beyond the Atlantic Ocean; seemingly sure that he'd reach the Far East by traveling. He's finally able to persuade Queen Isabelle de Castille (Sigourney Weaver) to grant him support. With his 3 ships {take a guess what their names are}, Columbus arrives at the isle of San Salvador after 10 arduous weeks of travel. Being portrayed as a sort of saint, Columbus never uses violence with the natives. After having left some 40 settlers on Hispaniola, he returns to Spain to submit his report to the Queen. Although Columbus could bring back only a small amount of gold, the Queen authorizes him to organize a 2nd expedition with the intention of exploring the territories with more fervor & understanding; thus, bringing back more wealth to Spain.
This time around, Columbus is accompanied by nobles who don't agree with the way he organizes the life of Natividad, the 1st city created on the American territory. To this, the colony is now attacked more often by nearby tribes of enemy Indians and Columbus, after 4 tough yrs. spent on Hispaniola, STILL doesn't find gold. And through all this, Columbus must contend with the rebellion of Moxica (Michael Wincott), a Spanish noble who looks to get rid of Columbus & his 2 brothers. A ferocious hurricane, some intense turmoil & tragic death ensues 'til the film's sobering denouement.
Before I get to what doesn't work, I must comment on the staggering production that Ridley Scott amassed here. Actual ships, exotic locales, massive sets, ornate costumes, hundreds of extras, real water, real fire -- THIS is how an action-adventure epic should look. Not only are the visuals something to behold, but you can almost feel the HEAT while watching the film; the florid atmosphere almost permeates the screen. I'm reminded of a sumptuous, dream-like moment when the ocean mist parts to reveal The New World for the 1st time. Scott & cinematographer Adrian Biddle create a goosebump-worthy moment there. One more note on the visuals -- to me eyes, I did not see a hint of CGI/special effects on that screen. To me, that's impressive.
But now to the negatives. The script - though heavily researched - comes across as messy; never really giving an accurate portrayal of Columbus (The Man). Perhaps it is difficult to nail-down all the facets {home life, personality traits, etc.} of someone from 500 yrs. ago ... but it felt like I didn't get to KNOW the real Christopher Columbus. I also got the impression while watching that the filmmaker(s) might've been striving for greatness or something complex within the story, yet overshot & missed the mark in doing so. Thematic richness is not to be found, the dialogue is sometimes hammy & there is a little lack of polish to everything that goes down. Visuals: A+. Script/cinematic execution? Not nearly as good.
Another area that might be questionable with some audiences is the violence & gore on display. Some might enjoy it, but fair warning, the story contains images of hangings, burnings, rape, pillaging, nudity, massacres, the formation of the slave trade, beheadings, blood, guts & even images of dead animals. It's a rough sit. And to that point, at 155 minutes in length, this cinematic journey is laborious, at times.
As the lead character {and a HUGE one, at that}, I don't know that Gerard Depardieu was the right fit. Yes, he demonstrates gravitas & heft which aided in trying to convey a portrait of this fervent explorer. But there are spots/bursts where he is not convincing. And one might think that a different actor should have been used. The supporting cast is diverse, yet awkward. Michael Wincott is suitably nasty as Moxica. Sigourney Weaver made me lean forward as domineering Queen Isabella. And Armand Assante entertains. But like Depardieu, none of them come across as Spanish or Italian in any way. Other minor characters suffer similarly. Only the minor native characters in America come across convincingly.
And aside from the wondrous visuals (Adrian Biddle's stunning cinematography, Norris Spencer's vast sets, Charles Knode & Barbara Rutter's varied costumes) we are treated to throughout the movie, one other highlight is the masterly musical score from Vangelis (Blade Runner, Chariots of Fire). Though it's a mostly rotund & electronic offering, for me, the juxtaposition of that epic sound mixed with the 15th c. visuals & happenstance simply WORKED. Overall, '1492' really is a mixed bag. Awkward script moments, that long running time, Depardieu, & the fact that the time spent at sea was truncated -- all irked me. I also feel like this film treated Christopher Columbus with kid gloves; bit of a noble, revisionist look at him. Nevertheless, I love my epics. And the grandiosity on display + many stolen moments of real verve or interest is what keeps my opinion of this chagrined film afloat.
Italian sailor Christopher Columbus (French actor, Gerard Depardieu) tried to persuade Spain's authorities to send him to explore lands located beyond the Atlantic Ocean; seemingly sure that he'd reach the Far East by traveling. He's finally able to persuade Queen Isabelle de Castille (Sigourney Weaver) to grant him support. With his 3 ships {take a guess what their names are}, Columbus arrives at the isle of San Salvador after 10 arduous weeks of travel. Being portrayed as a sort of saint, Columbus never uses violence with the natives. After having left some 40 settlers on Hispaniola, he returns to Spain to submit his report to the Queen. Although Columbus could bring back only a small amount of gold, the Queen authorizes him to organize a 2nd expedition with the intention of exploring the territories with more fervor & understanding; thus, bringing back more wealth to Spain.
This time around, Columbus is accompanied by nobles who don't agree with the way he organizes the life of Natividad, the 1st city created on the American territory. To this, the colony is now attacked more often by nearby tribes of enemy Indians and Columbus, after 4 tough yrs. spent on Hispaniola, STILL doesn't find gold. And through all this, Columbus must contend with the rebellion of Moxica (Michael Wincott), a Spanish noble who looks to get rid of Columbus & his 2 brothers. A ferocious hurricane, some intense turmoil & tragic death ensues 'til the film's sobering denouement.
Before I get to what doesn't work, I must comment on the staggering production that Ridley Scott amassed here. Actual ships, exotic locales, massive sets, ornate costumes, hundreds of extras, real water, real fire -- THIS is how an action-adventure epic should look. Not only are the visuals something to behold, but you can almost feel the HEAT while watching the film; the florid atmosphere almost permeates the screen. I'm reminded of a sumptuous, dream-like moment when the ocean mist parts to reveal The New World for the 1st time. Scott & cinematographer Adrian Biddle create a goosebump-worthy moment there. One more note on the visuals -- to me eyes, I did not see a hint of CGI/special effects on that screen. To me, that's impressive.
But now to the negatives. The script - though heavily researched - comes across as messy; never really giving an accurate portrayal of Columbus (The Man). Perhaps it is difficult to nail-down all the facets {home life, personality traits, etc.} of someone from 500 yrs. ago ... but it felt like I didn't get to KNOW the real Christopher Columbus. I also got the impression while watching that the filmmaker(s) might've been striving for greatness or something complex within the story, yet overshot & missed the mark in doing so. Thematic richness is not to be found, the dialogue is sometimes hammy & there is a little lack of polish to everything that goes down. Visuals: A+. Script/cinematic execution? Not nearly as good.
Another area that might be questionable with some audiences is the violence & gore on display. Some might enjoy it, but fair warning, the story contains images of hangings, burnings, rape, pillaging, nudity, massacres, the formation of the slave trade, beheadings, blood, guts & even images of dead animals. It's a rough sit. And to that point, at 155 minutes in length, this cinematic journey is laborious, at times.
As the lead character {and a HUGE one, at that}, I don't know that Gerard Depardieu was the right fit. Yes, he demonstrates gravitas & heft which aided in trying to convey a portrait of this fervent explorer. But there are spots/bursts where he is not convincing. And one might think that a different actor should have been used. The supporting cast is diverse, yet awkward. Michael Wincott is suitably nasty as Moxica. Sigourney Weaver made me lean forward as domineering Queen Isabella. And Armand Assante entertains. But like Depardieu, none of them come across as Spanish or Italian in any way. Other minor characters suffer similarly. Only the minor native characters in America come across convincingly.
And aside from the wondrous visuals (Adrian Biddle's stunning cinematography, Norris Spencer's vast sets, Charles Knode & Barbara Rutter's varied costumes) we are treated to throughout the movie, one other highlight is the masterly musical score from Vangelis (Blade Runner, Chariots of Fire). Though it's a mostly rotund & electronic offering, for me, the juxtaposition of that epic sound mixed with the 15th c. visuals & happenstance simply WORKED. Overall, '1492' really is a mixed bag. Awkward script moments, that long running time, Depardieu, & the fact that the time spent at sea was truncated -- all irked me. I also feel like this film treated Christopher Columbus with kid gloves; bit of a noble, revisionist look at him. Nevertheless, I love my epics. And the grandiosity on display + many stolen moments of real verve or interest is what keeps my opinion of this chagrined film afloat.