I go to movies for entertainment, and unless the movie has been touted as a 100%, bona fide accurate portrayal of the subject, then I have no problem if facts are embellished. This is Ridley Scott's vision of Christopher Columbus and his quest for the New World, and he has artistic license to create his vision and in my opinion did so magnificently with this film. I never got the feeling that Columbus was made a hero by this movie. The portrayal I saw was of a deeply flawed, brilliant man who did in fact commit great wrong against the natives, and returned to Europe completely demoralized. A broken man. And enough about Depardieu's accent. I understood him most of the time and even when I didn't, I still understood at least what was going on. I thought his acting was impeccable. The character of Moxica in particular was mesmerizing; the scene in which he is hissing and sneering at Columbus while on the back of a rearing stallion, Spanish drum music in the background, is one of the most memorable to me. The scene was effectively shot in slow motion, which seems to be Scott's signature in all his movies. This movie entertained me. To say any more would enter the territory of gushing, so I'll stop here!

It is utterly unclear to me, what has the editorial found "ridiculous" about this movie. Yes, the Depardieu's accent is obvious, but I've never had any difficulty understanding his lines. Besides, let's not forget the fact that Columbus wasn't an english as well. The music in this movie is magnicficent. It alone brings at east 3+ stars to the rating. The plot is very dynamic and action-packed. Within two and a half hours we see not one, but two journeys to the West and back. Moreover, due to such limited time, the film shorts some of the developments which could otherwise make it a much deeper, dramatic and touching movie. For that reason I gave it 4 stars. on the other hand, Mr. Marshall Fine, the editorial reviewer, clearly makes an example of ill attitude and politics taking over common sense and objectiveness - the very principles of fair criticism. I'd wonder if he ever passed a highschool.

Ridley Scott, who also directed Blade Runner and Gladiator, had an equally impressive take on the great Columbus. Columbus was really a great mariner and that is all; the movie shows this richly, as he is at a loss amidst the political infighting in Spain and later in the colonies. Tapped to be the first governor of Hispanola(now Haiti and the Dominican Republic), he was so inept as to antagonize the native peoples as well as his own fellow Europeans. The movie captures this with vivid outdoor vistas, driving traditional music, actual natives(brought to the islands from South America for the filming), and the beauty attached to seafaring. Historically, it is as accurate as Hollywood gets(50%?), which is fine. This is 500 years ago+, and the history has segued into mythology by now, anyway.

take care as this title is not an official catalogue movie in the Us the one i ordered through amazon market place was advised as zone 2 Pal.
No problem but what i received was "all zone" pal english speaking 5.1 no subtitles.
I was expecting for a zone 2 to be french speaking with at least english subtitles.
The explanation is that this advertised zone 2 pal dvd is the UK version.
as for the film this is amazing and i don't understand the review mentioning the transfer is of poor quality. I use a denon upscaling dvd player with a Pioneer 50 inch plasma and the result is awsome.
In sound mixing the central speaker mix is too high. the surrond effects are the best you can have

The perils of working towards an anniversary and trying to beat a rival project to the screen are all too evident in 1492 - Conquest of Paradise. It's easily Ridley Scott's most beautiful looking film, designed and shot with real love and care. With almost every shot gorgeous enough to take down and frame, it's like walking through an art gallery at times. Unfortunately that's never enough to compensate for a terrible screenplay by Roselyne Bosch that seems to have been written on the bus to work and stumbles from cliche to cliche. Carry On Columbus has better dialog at times, not to mention a better grasp of history. Worst of all, it throws away the real dramatic potential in Columbus' life for an unconvincing slice of class warfare - wouldn't you know it, it was really all those pesky upper class Euro trash aristo types like Michael Wincott that screwed up paradise, not Columbus' own incompetence and incredible cruelty - while painting him as the `chosen one.' At one point when the Inquisition ask our compassionate visionary if he is comparing himself to Christ, there's even a dramatic pause as he thinks it over in that he-is-you-know tipping the nod to the audience way. The result is a film that wants to be up there with Herzog's Spanish nutter in the jungle movies but is too expensive to allow its protagonist to go all Klaus Kinski on it and run the risk of alienating the audience, leaving us with more excuses and special pleading than drama.

Strangely, no-one in front of or behind the camera seems to notice just how bad the script is ("Excuse me, but you're the only queen I know," Columbus tells Isabella, soliciting the even more unlikely reply "You're the only navigator I know, so that makes us even."), and both performances and technical standards are all worthy of a much better film. The film has quite a few great cinematic moments, usually visually led and supported by Vangelis' excellent score, but it's too obvious that Scott wanted to film these scenes and tried to fit enough of a movie around them in the belief that he could carry the audience over the shoals without pulling it off. You can see the rationale behind moments like the hurricane that wipes away his new city and renders him paralysed, but without the real emotional journey into madness the film needs it's just setpiece filmmaking. Still, sometimes looking good is good enough - but not good enough for 154 minutes. It's a shame that they didn't read Kirkpatrick Sale's excellent historical biography instead of just using the title.

The transfer of Pathe's 2.35:1 widescreen UK PAL DVD of the uncut European version isn't always as good as it could be. The only extra is a trailer from the time when the film was still going to be called 'Columbus.'