Christopher Columbus: The Discovery (1992) User Reviews

should have been sold as a comedy!

[mjneu59 · 3/10 · 12 November 2010]

From the producer of 'Superman: The Movie' and 'Santa Claus: The Movie' comes what may well be the climax of a trilogy: the two-fisted tale of a lusty Genoese navigator who dared to sail the ocean blue to a New World, with a chorus, believe it or not, of Gloria in Excelsis Deo in the background. What more can be said? True guilty pleasures demand a willing suspension of good taste, and this tacky Hollywood whitewash may well stand as a classic of its kind. Screenwriter Mario Puzo tries to include as much history as he can, but the film is strictly a cartoon melodrama, complete with sword fights, romance, some pretty Atlantic Ocean sunsets and, in a casting nightmare unrivaled since Mel Gibson attempted Shakespeare, Tom Selleck and Rachel Ward playing King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. The film was sponsored by Quinto Centenario Spain, the official Columbus 500th anniversary commemorative society, which helps explain the flattering matinée idol heroism. But, honestly, could anything else have been expected from the director of Iron Eagle II and the previous few James Bond adventures?

"India, right?"

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 5/10 · 11 January 2010]

I do not know everything about the actual story, but I can imagine that it is more compelling than this. When I learned that this was written in part by Mario "The Godfather" Puzo, I got to hope for quality. With that said, I honestly doubt that I would have enjoyed this all that much regardless of how low my expectations were. The plot isn't all that engaging, and the pacing is uneven. This flick is simply put one of the best arguments for why you should not base viewing choices upon the cast alone. There are *amazing* actors in this, and they are utterly wasted. And several performances in this are unforgivably hammy. The special effects are painfully unconvincing. I wish I was kidding when I say that there is amateur theater with less obvious FX. Did I miss something? This was made in 1992! Did they misplace the budget? For that matter, how did the scenery get to look so bad? This is an adventure film, and that, at least in this case, means fight sequences. They're decent, but if you're looking for that, you can find far superior ones easily. There is some female nudity in this, for anyone that attracts or repels. I recommend this solely to history teachers who have a severe grudge against their students. 5/10

mostly middling with some laughable

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 8 September 2016]

Christopher Columbus (Georges Corraface) is searching for support of his mission of exploration. He is certain of one sea connecting Europe to Marco Polo's discovery. The Portugese rejects him. King Ferdinand (Tom Selleck) and Queen Isabella (Rachel Ward) of Spain want to spread Christianity. Beatriz (Catherine Zeta-Jones) falls for Columbus. Inquisitor Father Tomas de Torquemada (Marlon Brando) interrogates him and his quest is rejected for countering religious doctrine. After getting royal acceptance, Columbus is able to convince doubting sailors and Martin Pinzon (Robert Davi) to support the voyage. Columbus faces sabotage, deprivation, brutality, and native revolt.

The story is fit for a historical drama. There are good bits and pieces but the overall is not that good. It looks inferior. This came out around the same time as "1492: Conquest of Paradise". Neither are terribly good movies but at least 1492 has the look of an epic. Tom Selleck has no business playing the Spanish king. He's basically Magnum, P.I. with a jewel bedazzled coat. It's laughable. By comparison, Marlon Brando is nowhere near as bad. Georges Corraface is functional but he isn't the biggest name. There are a couple of familiar faces like Zeta-Jones and Benicio Del Toro. There is limitation to the intensity. This is not quite good enough.

Discover This

[The_Film_Cricket · 28 August 2014]

If Christopher Columbus were a happy-go-lucky swashbuckler with no introspective moments in his life and no frustrations or determination to do anything but wave his sword and march around in the latest fashions then 'Christopher Columbus: The Discovery' would be right on the mark.

This is a deadly dull and ruthlessly routine costume drama that didn't need to call the main character Christopher Columbus because you never feel that you are watching a real human being, you feel that you are watching fashion model in a perfume ad. The title role belongs not to an Italian but to a French actor named George Corraface who is a good looking guy who has his eyes more on women then on his journey.

The rest of the cast is and exercise in miscasting. Get this: Tom Selleck plays King Ferdenand, Rachel Ward plays Queen Isabella and Marlon Brando plays Torqaumada with so little energy that I expected him to doze off in the middle of his big scene. These are good actors but seeing them in these costumes and in these roles is just baffling. Christopher Columbus is a role that requires a very introspective actor, one who could act with his face and portray the frustration and anguish that probably haunted Columbus for most of his life both in America and back in Europe.

Then there is the ending in which the movie ends after a short stay in The New World and its back to Europe. I sometimes complain when movies are too short but this time I think the filmmakers did us a favor.

Sailing the Ocean Blue

[Uriah43 · 5/10 · 11 October 2021]

After being rejected by the Portuguese for financial help for a voyage across the Atlantic Ocean to the East Indies, "Christopher Columbus" (Georges Corraface) subsequently petitions "King Ferdinand" (Tom Selleck) and "Queen Isabella" (Rachel Ward) of a newly united Spain for the necessary ships and crew. As luck would have it, since the Portuguese had recently discovered a southern route to Asia around Africa, both King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were finally convinced and provided him the necessary ship and crew to make his voyage. What Columbus doesn't realize, however, is the amount of intrigue he will encounter as well as the danger that awaits him along the way. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this was an okay film for the most part which-like many films of a historical nature-embellished certain scenes to appeal to its intended audience. That said, although I would have preferred otherwise, I suppose it goes with the territory. Even more unfortunate, however, was the acting of Marlon Brando (as the influential Dominican advisor "Tomas de Torquemada") and the rather ridiculous costume worn by Tom Selleck. Admittedly, both Rachel Ward and Georges Corraface performed well enough but even so neither of them could elevate this mediocre film to any great degree and I have rated it accordingly. Average.

Brando was very angry and feel shame about this movie. Now we know why...

[poeticanarquica · 2/10 · 24 March 2020]

I read recently "The songs that my mother taugh me" the auto-biography of Marlon Brando. When he remember this movie, he said that he made all that he could for re-write the script, and he tries even when the film was in his final editing, to do a script that told THE TRUE, about Cristopher Columbus, and the "discover" of the new world... The REAL history. He was very disappointed and in fact he predicted that the film at the end, will be shameful. This is what happens when Hollywood hears the producers in love with the money and not to a genius with 35 years of experience.

The second-worst film of the modern era

[moonpics-1 · 1/10 · 4 January 2009]

My website, theflickguy.org, lists this pick as one of the worst films of all time, here is an excerpt:

"What do you look for in a bad Movie? Lame script? Laughable casting? Crappy acting? CC has it all. George Corraface (who?) is the revisioned Chris, now a swashbuckling, knife wielding Errol Flynn kinda hero. Apparently, Chris not only discovered America, he also invented the mullet. Tom Sellick gets the Sophie Coppola Casting Award for his role as King Ferdenand (nice pageboy 'do, Tom). This film isn't even worth seeing for the topless natives scenes, where the gods apparently bestow generous breasts only upon the Chief's daughter."

The discovery is that the film's a turkey.

[Colonel Ted · 1/10 · 21 September 1999]

Columbus must have turned in his grave because this is one of the worst films of the '90s, devoid of anything that could make it work on every level. It's a very old-fashioned adventure story, except in the old days they knew how to make film's like these. Director John Glen (who made some of the James Bond films) badly handles what little action there is and his direction is uninspired and unintentionally camp. The film looks like it was made in the '70s and there is no trace of style at all. The scenes on the islands with the Indians are a hoot. Production quality is poor (the ships look like they were made from cardboard), but that nothing compared to the terrible acting. Selleck and Ward as Ferdinand and Isabella are terrible, as is Corraface as Columbus, and the only pain Brando is giving out as Torqumada is by his mumbling performance. The script is based entirely in cliché terms and ideas are half hatched. It also bares a worrying resemblance to Carry on Columbus. The editing is some of the worst ever done for a film with scenes put together in slap-dash fashion with no sense of time or coherence. An object lesson in how NOT to make a film on every level. It even fails on its simplest level: to portray the courage and vision that these men had to cross the "ocean of darkness". Ridley Scott's 1492: Conquest of Paradise is so much better in every way that it doesn't do justice to be mentioned it in the same review.

Christopher Columbus: the Travesty

[D Throat · 4/10 · 10 February 1999]

Really not much of anything: all the things that could have been interesting to work out (such as the enslavement of the natives) are not pursued, but rather avoided, and the cast isn't great either. Tom Selleck as the King of Spain is an exceptional example of miscasting. There is lack of depth and indeed lack of actual involvement with the subject. Too bad, now the movie is boring and pointless, really. Watch 1492 Conquest of Paradise instead.

An old-timey sort of film; should have starred Errol Flynn

[smatysia · 6/10 · 11 June 2005]

This seems really to be an old-fashioned adventure film, the kind the studios churned out in great numbers in the 1940's. Maybe an Errol Flynn vehicle. That's the way Georges Corraface plays it, and it's okay. Not great, but okay. Marlon Brando totally mailed it in, as he was wont to do in his later years. Tom Selleck is a wonderful actor, but he really couldn't pull it off in this one. Rachel Ward was much more believable as Queen Isabella, regal, with more than a little bit of religious fanaticism. She also played it with minimal make-up, looking very forty-ish, something many actresses of her stature and beauty would have refused. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Benicio del Toro put in decent showings, given the limitations of the material. The scriptwriters were probably in a bit of a quandary, since the occasion (500th anniversary) called for a hagiography, but on the other hand, political correctness makes Colon out to be a villain. They tried to split the difference, and it didn't work. But over-all, this film is not as bad as some make it out to be. Oh, and mention must be made of the beauty of Tailinh Forest Flower as the Indian chieftain's daughter. Wow!

world history according to Ed Wood

[lee_eisenberg · 1/10 · 13 January 2014]

If any story should make a fascinating movie, it's the story of Columbus: a voyage across the ocean and landing on a hitherto unknown continent. His colonization of the Americas set the stage for Europe's domination of the world.

So how did they make such a lame-brained movie about it? Let's see: they cast Tom Selleck as King Ferdinand (whose idea was that?!) and gave the characters lines that sound more like something out of an Ed Wood movie. I understand that the Indians were initially planning to protest "Christopher Columbus: The Discovery", but when they saw how moronic it was, they realized that there was no need to protest it! The real irony is seeing Marlon Brando in the movie. He had come out in support of the American Indian Movement and famously sent a woman dressed in tribal regalia to accept his Oscar for "The Godfather". So why did he star in this?

Basically, you'll feel tempted to make the sorts of comments that Mike, Servo and Crow hurl at the crummy movies on "Mystery Science Theater 3000". While the characters were walking through what appeared to be a torture chamber, I said "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!" If you ask me, something that should get emphasized is the expulsion of the Jews and Muslims from Spain, and how the confiscation of their property financed the expeditions to the Americas. To say nothing of the Inquisition itself.

If the movie has any points of interest, it's the early appearances of Catherine Zeta-Jones and Benicio Del Toro. Everyone had to start somewhere. Nonetheless, the best movie dealing with Columbus's landing on Hispaniola (NOT discovery) is "Even the Rain". I also recommend James Loewen's book "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong".

A fun romp!

[caligariscabinet · 10/10 · 13 November 2005]

This great swashbuckler is completely underrated! Made in the style of the 1940s adventures with Tyrone Power, this film is fun and exciting and I definitely recommend it. And the cast! It's so cool to see the great Brando pass the proverbial torch to next generation actors Benecio Del Toro and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Rachel Ward is excellent as Queen Isabella and Robert Davi is superb. People expected to get a serious drama about Columbus but what they got was much more fun and for this people complain? The shots are beautiful, filmed on the open seas, and the adventure is non-stop. I watched it again this this Columbus Day- what a treat!

Ignore the monkey-see-monkey-do critics, this is a good historical adventure

[Wuchakk · 7/10 · 16 October 2022]

"Christopher Columbus: The Discovery" (1992) came out seven weeks before Ridley Scott's "1492: Conquest of Paradise," both of which tackle the same historic tale in celebration of its 500th anniversary. This one was directed by John Glen who's no slouch as he helmed five James Bond flicks in the '80s, including "For Your Eyes Only" (1981) and "Octopussy" (1983), both of which rank with the better 007 movies.

Scott's film is more artistic and epic, being longer by 34 minutes, whereas this one is more compact, not to mention it focuses more on the set-up to the expedition while "1492" is more concerned with what happens when Columbus hits ground on the other side of the Atlantic. Moreover, "Discovery" sticks to the first voyage whereas "1492" includes additional expeditions.

Both bombed at the box office, but "Discovery" made more money in North America and especially so if you factor in production costs ($40 million compared to $47 million). Each is worth checking out and comparing if you like real-life adventure. This one is more balanced in regards to the three acts and doesn't bog down with events in the New World. The weakest part of "Discovery" is the voyage itself, which runs half an hour (twice as long as in "1492"), which is understandable since it's difficult to make a long ship journey consisting of all males dramatically compelling. Scott's film did a way more convincing (and artistic) rendition of the Atlantic voyage.

However, "Discovery" has the superior cast with unknown Frenchman Georges Corraface charismatic in the title role, although Gérard Depardieu is more convincing in the role in "1492" when you consider historic artist depictions. Corraface, by contrast, comes across as the cliched Hollywood version of the explorer, which doesn't mean he's not effective. In any case, I like the way each version points out both Columbus' positive AND negative qualities.

Benicio Del Toro is also effective as one of the Spanish sailors of dubious character. Meanwhile it's great to see Brando near the end of his career as the Grand Inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada. While his role is peripheral, there's a subtle quiet greatness with his deep, effortless wisdom and spirit. Marlon would only perform in five other films. Then there's Tom Selleck as King Ferdinand, which critics curiously lambaste, but he actually kicks axx in the small role.

Speaking of critics, they all jumped on the hate bandwagon when "Discovery" was released as soon as they smelled blood in the water. However, neither this one nor "1492" are even close to being as awful as they claim. Like I said, they're definitely worth seeing if you prefer historical adventure in the mold of "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1962) and "The Bounty" (1984).

On the female front, Catherine Zeta-Jones is notable as Columbus' Castilian mistress, Beatriz. This was before she became a star, being only 21-22 during shooting and very cute. Rachel Ward also does well as Queen Isabella. Of course, most men will appreciate voluptuous Tailinh Agoyo as the chieftain's daughter for obvious reasons. Speaking of which, the women on the islands are overtly top nude, as was the case in "The Bounty." This is just a heads up.

I've heard critics say that "Discovery" can only be appreciated if you don't take it seriously, but this makes no sense since it's a historical tale in which the gist of events is true; for instance, what happens to the Santa Maria, as well as the 39 Spaniards left behind on Hispaniola when Columbus returned to Europe. While we know someone's head wasn't on the literal chopping block during the voyage, this was obviously added for dramatic effect.

Some complain about Columbus' swashbuckling early on, but he was widely traveled and I'm sure he ran into ne'er-do-wells with weapons on an occasion or two. I was held up by three guys with guns on a wilderness trail at one point while I've had friends involved in bloody knife fights at local bars and so forth. Let's not pretend like these kinds of clashes don't happen.

One of the reasons this flick and "1492" bombed was because Columbus was no longer viewed in a positive light by 1992 due to the preachin' of Lib academics who denounce the explorer as evil incarnate. But, let's face it, the European colonization of the Americas was BOTH a blessing and a curse, yet mostly a blessing since it introduced to the New World the written language, the horse, the wheel, wagons, stagecoaches, firearms, trains, industry, superior architecture and so on.

And let's not kid ourselves with the Lib fantasy that the Americas were a Garden of Eden before Euros arrived. There was constant war between "Indian" tribes, who are actually the progeny of settlers from Asia. There was also slavery, massacres, heinous torture of captives, gross human sacrifice in Mesoamerica to nourish their gods, headhunters in the Amazon. Need I go on? The idea conveyed in "The New World" (2005) that AmerIndians had never experienced envy/rivalry and didn't even know what a lie was is utterly laughable. I'm speaking as part-Abenaki.

The movie runs 2 hours and was shot in Portugal, Spain & Malta for the European events, the Atlantic Ocean for the sailing sequences and St. Thomas, U. S. Virgin Islands, for the island parts.

GRADE: B.

Terrible Film and Even Worse History

[HistoryFilmBuff · 1/10 · 26 June 2010]

Corny, goofy, and with some of the worst non-acting you ever saw: It doesn't get much worse than Tom Selleck as an effete fop. Try and hear him say "Por-too-gahl" without busting out laughing.

Or Rachel Ward playing Queen Isabela as a shallow minded slut who gives Columbus money because she was horny for him. Seriously, this film claims that! Try and reconcile that with the real life history: Isabella was a sharp, powerful queen who presided over the uniting of her nation, and one of the most devout Catholics to ever be on the throne. There's good reason she's called Isabela La Catolica and the Defender of the Faith.

And Columbus as a supposed charming rake? (Actually this actor comes across as a conceited ass in love with his own reflection.)Oh yeah, and showing his wife as a hot young thing...Columbus married a widow older than him, for her money.

Please! Columbus was a driven, obsessed religious fanatic who thought the world was coming to an end in hislifetime, a believer in The End Times who thought he would play a role in Arrmageddon.

Which, of course, is the worst thing the film does. It whitewashes genocide, doesn't show Columbus as the man who killed at least 800,000 Taino Indians, chopping off hand if they didn't give him enough gold, handing over Indian girls for his soldiers to rape as rewards for jobs well done, feeding Indian bodies to his dogs, and personally raping Indian women and enslaving both Indians and Africans. And he went to prison in Spain, for falsely imprisoning and torturing Spaniards.

Skip this travesty and see the far better films, Surviving Columbus or Columbus Didn't Discover Us. And unlike this sanitized fiction, these two films are the truth. And you can find them for free on Youtube.

extremely entertaining

[film-guy · 29 June 2005]

I had a wonderful time watching this film. I know it's considered by some to be inferior in comparison to the more lofty Conquest of Paradise, but I just can't help liking it. I'd rather watch Christopher Columbus: The Discovery over The Conquest of Paradise any time. It's a swashbuckling high-adventure movie with plenty of panache. Perhaps that wasn't what many expected from a Columbus movie, but it works for me. One previous reviewer said it seemed like something Erol Flynn would have starred in. I agree. I first approached this flick as an entertaining tall-tale in the tradition of classic adventure/pirate films and greatly enjoyed The Discovery.

Fortunately for this movie, they don't give "zero" an option as marks out of ten.

[Victor Field · 1/10 · 12 February 2003]

The 500th anniversary of C. Columbus's voyage to what he thought was India was deemed worthy of two major motion pictures (no, "Carry On Columbus" doesn't count). The trouble is that at the time there was much general apathy in the world as a whole about the whole thing, as evidenced by the lack of box office success for both this and the comparatively better "1492: Conquest Of Paradise" - neither was much to write home about, but "Christopher Columbus: The Discovery" was the worse of the two by far, and it's fortunate that Alexander Salkind will be remembered for "Superman" instead of this (it was his last production).

In pretty much every department from casting (Tom Selleck as the King of Spain. Why?) through writing ("Admiral Colon, you have won our respect and our admiration. Now where's my gold?" Note: In spite of the title, the legendary seafarer is correctly referred to as Cristobal Colon throughout... except when someone calls him "Christopher Columbus" at one point) to "special" effects, on top of an ending that leaves a really bad taste in the mouth - we cut from the misery left behind in the New World to our hero exulting as Cliff Eidelman's wildly over-the-top music bursts forth - the movie's embarrassing, shoddy and offensive. Not that the other Columbus movie didn't have its own faults (the exceptional dullness is only one of its problems) but at least Ridley Scott and Co. studied it with a bit more depth than this tosh.

Funny how Catherine Zeta-Jones never mentions this one.

Top 100 unintentionally hilarious films

[El Guapo-2 · 1/10 · 17 November 2005]

I leave it to the viewers good graces to determine whether or not they will watch this film. Most of you will not, and I commend you. There are certainly more worthwhile things to do with your time. However, having said that... the scene where Georges Corraface, a Frenchmen, playing Christopher Columbus (who was Genoan?), enjoys a big fat magic dragon cigar with the local Indian chief (at least played by a real native American) has to be seen to be believed. At least Tim Dalton had the good sense not to appear in this nonsense. The ending made me scratch my head and go "huh", and not in that good David Lynch kind of way either.

Really, really bad

[hausrathman · 1/10 · 30 November 2002]

Define laughable? Okay, how about Marlon Brando as Torquemado, the Spanish Inquisitor? Not impressed? Well, how about Rachel Ward as Queen Isabella? No, I've got it: Tom Selleck as King Ferdinand. But that's not the whole story. There's a whole lot to laugh about in this is utterly ridiculous retelling Columbus story ham handedly directed by John Glen and poorly written by a number of people included Mario Puzo - time to take back that "Godfather" Oscar. This is a hopeless morass of idiotic subplots and stabs at political correctness. The only consistent thing about the film is the overall quality: Bad. To make matters worse, it is far too cheap and cheesy-looking for an epic story of this scope.

only one ray of hope...

[isis_whit · 3/10 · 1 January 2000]

It's definitely not the best of movies on this topic. The story is packed with cliches, the scenery looks pretty unreal. And the cast is just terrible, except Robert Davi, who makes this movie a little more a pleasure to watch. Too bad to see his talent wasted once again.

What Inchon! was to the Korean War, this film is to Columbus

[IonicBreezeMachine · 3/10 · 16 February 2023]

In 1490s Spain, following rejection by the king of Portugal of his proposal to find an alternate route to India, Genoese navigator Cristobal Colon (Geores Corraface) takes his proposal to King Ferdinand (Tom Selleck) and Queen Isabelle (Rachel Ward) of Spain. Despite Ferdinand's skepticism and religious opisition from inquisitor Tomás de Torquemada (Marlon Brando), Cristobal is able to gain the support he needs for his voyage through Queen Isabelle and sets off for his voyage to discover an alternate path to India.

Christopher Columbus: The Discovery is a 1992 adventure film that was one of a number of projects made to celebrate the Columbus Quincentenary (500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage) with this film and 1492: Conquest of Paradise entering production roughly around the same time. Produced by the infamous father/son producing duo of Alexander and Iyla Salkind, the movie was plagued by cast and crew turnover before it was even released with Ridley Scott briefly considering working with the Salkinds before choosing to go with competing project 1492: Conquest of Paradise with the Salkinds attempting to sue Scott only to drop the lawsuit later. George P. Cosmatos of Rambo II and Cobra had originally been slated to direct with Timothy Dalton and Isabella Rosesellini slated to play Kind Ferdinand and Queen Isabella but following clashes behind the scenes all three departed with Cosmatos and Dalton issuing legal action against the Salkinds. Eventually the film managed to find a director in John Glen who had directed the Dalton Bond films Living Daylights and License to Kill and the Salkinds managed to score Marlon Brando in a supporting role as Torquemada for $5 million, which Brando only took after being promised re-writes that would showcase Columbus' role in Indian genocide that although promised by Iyla were reneged by Alexander. Brando later unsuccessfully tried to have his name removed from the credits with him receiving top billing. Upon release the film was a colossal failure opening in fifth place behind several holdovers and the opening of low budget Brandon Lee vehicle Rapid Fire and the film only managed to make $8 million against an estimated $45-50 million budget. Lawsuits continuing to plague the Salkinds afterwards with even Ilya suing Alexander and the Salkinds would never be involved in a major motion picture ever again. The movie has quietly faded into obscurity with the movie panned upon initial release, but not leaving any legacy of notoriety because Christopher Columbus: The Discovery is the worst kind of bad, boringly bad.

When watching Christopher Columbus: The Discovery, the first thing you notice is that despite being a very expensive movie, there's very little in terms of creating a sense of grandeur with director John Glen keeping the framing very tight and claustrophobic with no real impressive shots. Even the costuming has the feeling of a bad game of "dress-up" rather than a well-produced period piece, but when you have the out of place casting of Robert Davi and Tom Selleck in prominent supporting roles it doesn't help sell the illusion especially since both are very contemporary actors who don't fit in 15th century Spain. In terms of the film's handling of Christopher Columbus, the movie feels like "hero worship" of Columbus and plays the voyage in a manner similar to that of a swashbuckler (not too dissimilar from how the Salkinds did their Musketeer films), there's maybe some very brief hints of Columbus' legacy but for the most part the worst actions against indigenous peoples are done by forgettable boarderline nameless crew members rather than Columbus himself. The closing shot of the movie that sees Columbus standing atop a seaside cliff with his outstretched arms "embracing" the "new world" is massively misjudged and considering the conversational shift regarding indigenous peoples in the 90s this movie couldn't have been more poorly timed if it tried.

Christopher Columbus: The Discovery is probably about as close as the 90s got to having an equivalent to 1981's Inchon!, in that it's an expensive poorly done historical epic where both "history" and "epic" are not guaranteed. While it may not have the baggage associated with the Unification Church or as crazy a production history, it has nonetheless made a tedious slog that fits comfortably alongside Inchon! As a comparison piece.

Far better than it's got credit for

[OJT · 7/10 · 30 March 2015]

This was heavily based by critics all over in 1992, when compared to "1492 - Conquest of Paradise". That film was also OK (7/10), and it took me years to seek out this, as it was bashed the way it was. However, I've seen later DVD-reviews being far more favorable, and they're right!

This film is more of a dramas than an action movie. And it's most certainly way more true in depicting how the long sea trip took place, as well as how it all got to get that far. I found the waiting for them to see land as exciting as the action which is probably what was the reason critics didn't like it back in 1992. It was also said the acting was bad back them. That's pure crap. The acting is good.

The way the film depicts the bad parts of the conquering is simply great. It goes down through the bone marrow. Sometimes critics just follow each other like a flock of seagulls. And all around the world they copy what's been said "over there". This premiered in USA and Germany 14 days before the rest of the world, which just followed up the bad critics. This was before the world had seen much of Internet.

It shows Columbus as a kind, but also hard man. He is not shown as a pure hero. He steal the gold and silver from the Indians, and he lets crime happen. He also took slaves back, and forced the Christian religion upon them, to show how good the Indians were when brought back to Spain. It was purely awful. It's grim in many ways. No wonder it was seen upon as a travesty back at the 500 years anniversary.

See it. See a much more true story than the other films, though it has no happy ending! Just as it was. The modern world ruined the Central Americas in an awful way.

Is it accurate? Who knows!

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 9 May 2023]

There are two HUGE problems with making a film about Christopher Columbus. First, there is almost nothing known about this man. No one is sure whether he came from Genoa or not, what he looked like or much about his life and family. Trust me on this.... I taught world and US history and know that most of the 'facts' we know about him are actually made up...and aren't facts at all.

Because of this, there really isn't much for screen writers to go on....and, frankly, they either need to make a SHORT film or just make stuff up! Second, in this age of political correctness and anti-political correctness, a film about this recently divisive figure will be a VERY tough sell. In other words, it's pretty much guaranteed some group of people will be offended by the end result...which, incidentally, did happen when "Christopher Columbus: The Discovery" came out in 1992.

My main problem with the film is that it's pretty boring stuff. Part of this is because the filmmakers chose to throw in some stuff about Torquemada and the Inquisition and it just didn't seem to fit the story. And, while I don't agree that Marlon Brando was awful as Torquemada, he wasn't particularly interesting and the studio sure spent their money unwisely by paying him an ungodly fee for a TINY role. Overall, a movie that is just okay...not terrible but not especially enjoyable.

swashbuckling adventure / cautionary tale

[magicinema · 10/10 · 18 November 2005]

Do not go into this movie expecting a strictly serious biography of Christopher Columbus. This is an adventure movie by the same producers of The Three Musketeers, The Four Musketeers, Superman: The Movie, Superman II, Superman III, Supergirl, and Santa Claus: The Movie. It was directed by the same director of Iron Eagle III, License To Kill, Living Daylights, View To A Kill, and Octopussy. All of that means this isn't a serious historical biography and was never intended to be. It's a swashbuckling version of the legend of Columbus that's also cautionary tale about the destructive power of greed. It's also family entertainment so don't expect it to be too dull or deep. I look forward to the day when this movie is available on DVD.

Depends how you look at it

[johnhsmith-00056 · 7/10 · 23 May 2022]

This film is not that bad. I know that's not the best way to start a review, but I was going in expecting the worst.

If you take this film completely seriously, then sure, it's rock bottom. If you don't take it seriously, it's a wonderful film. There are a lot of interesting moments and beautiful scenery. It doesn't just focus on the long sea voyage and the discovery of the Americas, and first contact with the natives. It includes the entire political situation around this. Spain had finally gotten the upper hand over the Moors, the Spanish Inquisition had recently begun, and there was an intense rivalry between Spain and other European powers over trade with China and India. It also doesn't gloss over the obsession over finding gold, converting the natives, and their maltreatment. And that's part of the problem - this film attempted to squeeze an enormous amount of events in just two hours, when the subject deserves two or three films, or a mini-series.

Some of the casting choices (like Tom Selleck as Ferdinand) wouldn't have looked so ridiculous if they had time to actually develop their characters instead of belting out a few key lines so the studio could advertise the roles as part of the line up.

There's a reason this has drifted into obscurity

[Wizard-8 · 7 October 2011]

After hearing so many bad reviews for this movie, I knew I had to see it because I often find big budget disasters entertaining. Though that was no easy task, since the movie has never been released on DVD and has never popped up on any of the TV channels in my area (the last one probably because of the nudity in the movie.) I finally found it in a video store that still rents out VHS tapes. Well, is it as bad as you've heard? Yeah, it's pretty bad. The acting is pretty awful and the big names in the cast seem ill at ease throughout. The movie also has a poor sense of time, with periods that took a long time in real life condensed in what seems like a couple of weeks. And despite the fairly lavish budget, a lot of the movie looks surprisingly cheap and slapdash. (For example, a lot of the time when the ships are at sea, it's clear the boats are floating just a few feet from land.) As for the character of Christopher Columbus, you never get a feel of a real character, or feel what drives him or what he really feels. If you want to find out more about Columbus, I strongly suggest you go to your local library instead of sitting through this phoniness.

Now, to find a copy of 1492: CONQUEST OF PARADISE...