MovieChat Forums > 1492: Conquest of Paradise (1992) Discussion > A criminally underrated film

A criminally underrated film

posted 9 years ago by patricksullivan-33433
13 replies | jump to latest

I know this tanked at the box office, and the fact that it has never been released on DVD in North America is utterly ridiculous. For the life of me, I can not understand why this film is not more well known/popular. I thought Depardieu was excellent as Columbus-yes it is a bit strange to have a Columbus speaking with a French accent, but when you consider the fact that in real life he would be speaking Spanish, then it's a little less difficult to accept. This is what is done all the time when we watch films-we suspend disbelief. I thought this film was beautifully shot. Many scenes feel like you are looking at a painting, and one feels like they are being transported back in time, to the life and times of the characters being depicted on screen. To me, this film should have been nominated for the big awards back in 1992, but sadly this was not the case. I think only Vangelis's magnificent score was nominated for an Academy Award. I believe 1492 to be an underrated masterpiece, and a film to be remembered for years to come. And Paramount needs to wake up and give this a blue-ray/DVD release in North America. I had to order a Korean copy off of the internet in order to own it on DVD. Thankfully there is an option to shut off the Korean subtitles. Anyway, get this film released! I think it could finally gain the recognition that it deserves and be more accessible to a wider audience.

[–] filmlife-04472 9 years ago

No surprise here!
Just look at Ridley´s filmography...Most of his films gets recognised YEARS after they´re made!
He is very unlucky with audience...
He says he makes films for himself but come on! His movies are amazing!

I WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND this...He is always light years ahead I guess :D

[–] Smokey_T 8 years ago

This film got recognised for what it was quite early.

[–] Max1975 8 years ago

I fully agree with you. I always thought that it tanked at the US box office because it was Spanish / French co-production, with French lead actor.
Personally I love this movie.

__________
I'm the best at what I do, and what I do best isn't very nice.
I'm the Wolverine.

[–] kabouter69 8 years ago

Because the movie is a flat out lie.

Columbus commited genocide on huge scales , raped, pillaged, he did not in fact discover that the world was round, and he was an utter idiot, he thought he was in asia ibstead of america until his dying breath.

Asking why this movie did not do well, is like asking why a movie that shows hitler as a good guy would not do well, only worse.

[–] overseas7 (4337) 6 years ago

I think it is a good movie, leaving aside some historical inaccuracies, with a very good beginning und ending (about 25 minutes in the middle of the film are a little bit boring may be).

As someone mentioned above it was Spanish / French co-production, with French lead Actor, may be that is a reason why the movie was not very successful in the USA. That Columbus was not an angel I think it is clear for everyone but to compare him with Hitler...

I do not think neither that he was an idiot because he did not know that he was in another continent (we are speaking about the year1492).

I agree with some comment above, I love Signourney Weaver but to see her as a Spanish Queen, may be not the best idea.

The Soundtrack is very good.

And finally to comment that the "discovery" of America from the european nations was a disaster for all Indian nations in that continent.

[–] chas437 8 years ago

I've seen this film a few times over the years, and I'm sort of conflicted.

Its a visual masterpiece, kudos to Ridley Scott.

I think the biggest problem was the casting. Depardieu was a big mistake in the lead role, and not just because of his French accent. That's something the film just couldn't recover from. The casting in general was just off, why not cast a bunch of Spanish actors?, instead of Sigorny Weaver, etc.

At the end of the day, I can't go higher than 6.5.

[–] bishop-69757 8 years ago

I enjoyed it but I think it's a deeply flawed movie. 7/10 for me

[–] Smokey_T 8 years ago

It's not a great film, and it is hard to reconcile the film's fantasy of Columbus with the reality of the man.

At no point did likable Depardieu and his brothers cut the breasts of natives that refused to work in their mines thereby killing them, and their infant children, to make an example of them to other natives.

At no point in this deplorable, schmaltzy crapfest was the church so horrorfied by Columbus that he was sent back to Spain in irons...

There are countless flaws of good taste - like Signourney Weaver as a Spanish Queen.

Yes, the soundtrack is great. Yes, the visuals and production design are fantastic.

No, this is not a fantastic film that will grow better in time.

[–] heaintloveu 8 years ago

Idk, it wasn't that bad

[–] Smokey_T 8 years ago

The Idk bit is right. There's bits of good film in there, but it's lost being about Christopher Columbus.

[–] heaintloveu 8 years ago

Maybe someday the subject will be revisited in another movie

[–] Jones70 (6585) 6 years ago

I’ll have to check this out sometime!

[–] yvesyves (689) 4 years ago

Totally agree, an absolutely gorgeous movie, entertaining, beautiful scenery, great acting.

One of those awesome 1990's big budget movies.