Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

hou-3 What this weak movie brought home to me was the importance of a good script. Two days previously I rewatched The Mission, a masterpiece about European contact with the indigenous people of the Americas. The Mission has wonderful actors, inspired cinematography and a classic score, but what enables them all to synergise is Robert Bolt's intelligent, sensitive and beautiful script. It fills the film with radiance. By contrast, the script for 1492 is unbelievably poor, pedestrian to the last degree. I wonder that Ridley Scott allowed himself to be saddled with it. OK, Depardieu's English is not great, but from the start you can see that this fine actor can do nothing with these lines. Nor can Weaver and the others. Funny really, because the script is surely the least costly item in the budget.

zenithspider I suggest everyone who reads this goes and watches History Buffs review of this movie, he tears apart this disgusting monstrosity.I'll keep this brief. This movie is DISGUSTING!!! It's plagued with inaccuracies, exaggerations, and down right lies! This movie makes Christopher Columbus out to be some sort of visionary, a man who tries his best to keep peace. When in actual fact he sold off native women as sex toys, employed punishments of dismemberment, enslaved the native population, and exploited them to no end.This movie frames his men as the true villains. And trust me they were horrible people. Doing such awful things as having bets about who could decapitate a man with one swipe first, and even throwing babies into rivers as the laugh. (I am seriously not joking there is actual accounts of this)But this was all whole hardheartedly supported by Columbus himself. Now there are a lot of minor inaccuracies plaguing this movie as well, but the review I mentioned goes into detail about this.So in short. This movie is a disgusting cowardly mockery of a real genocide. It frames a man on par with Hitler as a brave kind hearted visionary. Whilst pathetically covering up the real horrors this inhuman monster committed. And for those of you who claim hes just a victim of his time. You should know one of his men became a monk after witnessing what Columbus did. And that he was imprisoned in his own time.

Guilherme Figueiredo I'm in shock after watching this masterpiece of cinema, and realize that this is the most under-rated film in history. Must be a lack of maturity of the people today in recognize a true work of art and distinguish them of the trash we see every week in theaters today.The film tells a wonderful story, intriguing and engaging, with great performances, great custom designs, perfect art direction, and editing, the soundtrack is completely awesome.With the film we understand how fragile was the relationship of the Europeans and its interests with the wild natives, and how these interests led to destruction of a local culture and introduced a new millennium to the American continent. With the great performance of Gérard Depardieu, Sigourney Weaver, and Armand Assante also with the fantastic direction of Ridley Scott, we also realize how sad was the story of Christopher Columbus that after discovering the new world, had its failure to colonize it efficiently in the eyes of the Spanish crown, and had his belated recognition out of its time, this recognition that ended up to Americo Vespucci.In the film we make a trip back in time, the scenes, the costumes, all landscapes, are extremely realistic and true to reality of the time, I guarantee to all that didn't watched this movie, after you do it will be one of your favorites. And I ask those who judge the film as bad or average, to revise their concepts immediately because I guarantee you that they are wrong.

Prismark10 1992 marked the 500th anniversary of the 'discovery' of the Americas. It meant there were a plethora of documentaries and articles on Columbus. Some were critical, he discovered a continent that had 1 million people living there, might had been discovered by others before and he found the wrong place as he thought it was India. Ultimately many of the original inhabitants suffered from his intervention.1492 from Ridley Scott tries to makes sense of this contradictions. It is a gloriously flawed film, great art direction, production and music. A multi national cast with Depardieu speaking his lines with a heavy French accent but bringing presence. Scott scored with his supporting cast of villains, all of them hiss-able as vipers on the head of Medusa. You know early on things are going to turn ugly for the native Americans.Scott likes his history and admires Islamic history and you see early on when it comes to Reconquista when Moorish structure are destroyed and lost forever that the Spanish aristocrats are not appreciative of the arts and noble causes but only care about the monarchy, church and gold.Columbus is painted as a romantic adventurer, maybe misguided even naive. Depardieu cannot quiet hold the film together, frankly his English is not good enough. Its still a bold attempt at filmaking but we lack the real, more complex and the more greedy Columbus.