Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

tom-456 This could have been a great movie, but it was rendered entirely unwatchable by Gérard Depardieu. Why did the people who made this movie cast him as Columbus? A French clown? Of course the French love him, because he's one of their own, and because they love clowns. They loved Jerry Lewis, after all. But why cast a French clown as Christopher Columbus? It is downright bizarre, and it completely ruined this movie, which otherwise could have been a great movie. Among the alternatives, there is one very well-known American actor, with southern European ethnic heritage, who would have been great in this role. Even Arnold S. would have been better than the French clown. The one thing that keeps this movie from being relegated to the trash pile is the musical score.

sommese Christopher Columbus - THE DISCOVERY (1992) Warner Brothers opened in theaters same time as this film "1492". Viewed "1492" film again on Hulu for this holiday (Columbus Day 2017). I prefer "DISCOVERY FILM" for a number of reasons. At film's end Columbus is hero having completed first voyage successfully and long before things went wrong in Haiti (La Espaniola). "1492" film goes beyond first voyage up to his Third, next to last voyage. Things were truly as bad as depicted in second film. This is shown clearly in the manuscripts of his son Fernando. Fernando's book actually shows things were worse than shown in film. Both films were box office disappointments. However,year 1992 critics seemed to like "1492" film better. It shows Columbus as a victim, failure and basically a "schmuck". This may be why Europeans view Columbus in a good light. In the USA he seems to get little credit......but all the blame.

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.

SnoopyStyle Christopher Columbus (Gérard Depardieu) as an idealist, visionary, and ultimately a tragic figure, that's the idea behind director Ridley Scott's version. He takes Columbus from when the Muslims are conquered in Spain to when the natives are being conquered.It's a grand vision. The places are big and well shot. Ridley Scott has the skills to shoot this. I can only recommend this for its beautiful grandeur.While Armand Assante is interesting as Sanchez, Signourney Weaver just isn't regal enough in the role of Queen Isabella I. I would hope that she bring something more substantial to the role. But the worst has to be Gérard Depardieu himself. His accent really drains any drama from the movie. Most of the time, I would be lucky to just understand what he's saying. But the flat tone really prevents him from projecting a wider range of emotions. It really takes the tension out of the movie.There are some memorable moments in the movie. The most fascinating is meeting the natives. However it's mostly due to the look rather than anything inspired. The new world scenes are worth checking this movie out.