Vangelis' music rocks but that's it. Ridley Scott is not good at handling epics.

A great movie, with stunning shots and practical visual effects. A classical one to remember. Don't let yourself fooled by the average tiktok 10 seconds attention spam users that give low rating to this movie.

Don't be fooled by the negative reviews. A movie retelling the story of an event 500 years ago doesn't have to be completely accurate to be good. In fact, the base events are true, with Columbus being both daring and egotistic. Don't expect heroic battle scenes with victorious Europeans savings the day. In fact, what happened was both amazing and awful, brave and vicious. Be prepared to be emotionally drained at the end. For a movie made at the beginning of the 1990s, without the technology advantages of today, this is both a visually stunning and emotional movie.

Not so bad, it flopped as a movie business venture, but Ridley Scott spectacle did touch some points of the ''New World'' history trying to shed the light on who Columbus really was, and what he under/over achieved. Not so bad after all the tumbs down...Worth watching.

Nearly as bad as the other bio of the same year.

1492: Conquest of Paradise is a visually stunning movie with great acting and an incredible story to tell. Christopher Columbus is portrayed as he was: a brave, skilled and very religious, yet also flawed man who had an incredible vision to explore the unknown and change the world forever. The incredible scenery and a fabulous soundtrack by Vangelis also make it really worth seeing.

The visuals, the score, the set locations are all superb, but its the most romanticized version of Christopher Columbus you will ever see. Christopher Columbus is such complicated figure that its a crime to put his life story into an overlong film. Again another story that deserves to be told as a tv series rather than a movie to flesh out the characters and their motivations throughout that time period.

Ridley Scott delivered another semi-classic, But still it wasn't a faithful and full perfect tribute.

I really liked this movie. It was a lot of fun and had plenty of grandeur in my opinion. The cinematography and direction are great, Ridley Scott's eye is working well here. But the jewel in the crown is the soundtrack by Vangelis, which is an all-timer.

An epic of sorts. Ridley Scott's attempt to recount the events surrounding Italian explorer Christopher Columbus, his travels to the New World and what had transpired there. The film was released in 1992 to coincide with the 500th anniversary of Columbus' journey when coincidentally a handful of films that set themselves around his life were released. Most of which were critical and commercial failures – such cases were John Glen's take on the events: The Discovery, starring the legendary Marlon Brando and a more "comedic" take on the events with carrying on Columbus which proved genuinely dire. And now with Scott's grand account of the story here, unfortunately, nothing has improved over those films mentioned. Christopher Columbus played here by French star Gerard Depardieu begins to draw up a plan to sail across to the New World. However, he lacks enough resources and proper trust from the powers that be who see him as unreliable. After a chance meeting with shipowner Pinzon played by Tcheky Karyo who is known to a banker named Santangel, reveals that the Queen Isabella the 1st of Spain played by Sigourney Weaver is in debt to him and grants Columbus an audience with her, in which she agrees to fund his exhibition to bring back a considerable amount of gold. The voyage eventually proves successful and immediately on the land, he begins a rapport with the local natives and ultimately promises them that more will come to bring the message of God. Over time a settlement and a church are built there under his leadership. However, the relationship between the tribesmen and soldiers proves distrustful with the pursuit of gold. What follows is a storm that even Christopher Columbus himself can't control, leading to his own reputation and life being put at stake. Ridley Scott has clearly proven himself adept at grand-scale storytelling, and interesting character study and yet here the results seem entirely flat. I have been trying to pinpoint what exactly was wrong with this film, and it came down to a few factors. The first is that I think the subject matter itself is so big that the weight and scale of it proved that Scott couldn't reign it in properly. It's big and epic sure but the film is also dull and laboured, with it going on far too long. Secondly, the film could have been given an engaging lead actor to guide us through the proceedings, which might have counteracted the first factor. Gerard Depardieu, unfortunately, provides a bland and not very impressive performance – which for this story is a huge problem. The third is the score. Vangelis worked with Ridley Scott again for this film and to say that his score is overblown is an understatement. There are scenes set in slow-motion, in which the score is drenched within, trying to create a profound atmosphere but just comes across as superficial and hard to take seriously. Any attempt to delve into the inner turmoil of Columbus' conflicted persona is at a loss for. For instead, we are treated to a barrage of long drawn out scenes of essential characters in rooms talking and talking. Not to mention, visual splendour that actually pads the film out longer than it needs to be. What should have been a fascinating account of discovery and imperialism, ended up being a beautifully shot but ultimately dull and ponderous film. That once in a while, can reveal a breathtaking shot that reminds you what a brilliantly visual director Ridley Scott is, but as it is, it's pretty bad. There is however an entertaining over-the-top performance from character actor Michael Wincott as a slimy and creepy fellow explorer. Whenever any time he was on screen, I was marginally entertained by how much he was relishing such a devious part. Sadly he isn't on display enough. A sprawling account of Christopher Columbus and his time with the Americas in the New World made epic by Scott but also languorous and ponderous in equal measure. Backed by a bland performance by Gerard Depardieu and with a lack of insight into the man himself renders the film not worthy of praise except for the visuals.

1492: Conquest of Paradise is about Christopher Columbus's journey to India. On his journey, he mistakenly finds new islands. The story is mainly about his encounters and struggles with the natives on those islands. I had a hard time to follow the film, even though I am a Ridley Scott fan, my all-time favourite film is Blade Runner. First, I did not like the characters. The depiction of Columbus is too modern for his time, my knowledge about Christopher Columbus might not be very much to criticize but his motives on this film are too radical and full of modern man behaviours, I don't think that a man on his time would get away easy with those behaviours especially against the queen. Another problem is the timelines. It is a common problem among this kind of films. The film tries to tell a story circulates in a long time period, which requires huge time jumps. This kind of time jumps increases the plausibility of the film. This problem occurs on films like Troy and Kingdom of Heaven too. It is so challenging for a filmmaker to successfully execute these jump cuts on a film that some great directors like Ridley Scott might fail to do so. For me, the biggest disappointment about this film is that relations with the natives are not convincing. The film tries to tell that Columbus and his fellows are welcomed at those islands and the natives are normal people, not savages. However, in a 2.5-hour film, these relations are not depicted enough, only a few scenes show the humanity of those natives but that is not convincing enough. If the film had more scenes to show the customs and behaviours of the natives rather than Columbus's ideas and struggles of building a new colony, (I'm not saying that these are not necessary but those scenes can be short.) the film would be more interesting to watch.

Ambitious, but misguided. I mostly saw it for the music and the director. Not a bad cast either, but the dialogue and themes were distracting.

Obviously not a 'documentary' as no movie based on events over 100 years, not to mention 500 years ago is going to get everything 'right'. Just watching how current news today is so easily skewed proves this. No, this was a movie that given the history of how it was made, those involved, and the attention put into what history we do know, is fascinating to watch on several levels. The music of course is another major strong point turning viewing this into an 'event' and not just a movie.

Deliberately lied about or omitted deeds and misinformations of Columbus and his ilk, for starters it was common knowledge that the world was round 2000 years prior to his inane mission

As much as many agree it's not the best of movies especially it's only a drama, but at least it gives the viewer an insight into the Columbus' discovery of the Caribbean and everything you would expect, the happiness and the hardship. It was worth watching

A Jane é foda mas esse filme não, #Narigão #pas

A true epic from the legendary director Ridley Scott, even though it may come off as a bit too long.

Best movie about Columbus. Revisionist American haters, communist pigs try to rewrite our history of our great and Noble founder. This movie gives his peace his justice and his love for people and discovery.

It's a decent retelling of the Christopher Columbus story. Some strange creative choices are made and it's a little too long, but it's an interesting window into a fascinating time. It's just too bad, that all the new info came out about Columbus, that makes it not as accurate anymore...

Columbus romanticized according to the heady and overwrought sensibilities of the 1990s. In the words of Roger Ebert: "I am not convinced that Columbus was as enlightened as he seems in this movie, but perhaps historical figures exist in order to be reinterpreted every so often in terms of current needs. In Columbus': "Life has more imagination than we carry in our dreams."