Own the rights?
17 out of 18 people found the following review useful: extremely entertaining, 29 June 2005 Author: film-guy from United States
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.
18 out of 20 people found the following review useful: A fun romp!, 13 November 2005 Author: caligariscabinet from United States
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!
14 out of 15 people found the following review useful: An old-timey sort of film; should have starred Errol Flynn, 11 June 2005 Author: smatysia (feldene@comcast.net) from Houston
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!
14 out of 17 people found the following review useful: swashbuckling adventure / cautionary tale, 18 November 2005 Author: magicinema from United States
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.
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful: "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet...?", 22 June 2008 Author: TrevorAclea from London, England
Christopher Columbus: The Discovery a swashbuckler? Is it a revisionist history? A celebration? Condemnation? All or none of the above? Well, yes it is, and that's just part of the problem.To be honest, it's not really THAT bad. It's not that good, but it's not that bad. Aspiring to Warner Bros. in the 30s to evoke the spirit of Errol Flynn, but only making it to Fox in the 50s and their Richard Conte Deluxe-CinemaScope costumers, the Salkinds' much ridiculed version is not quite as moronic as its reputation would imply.Many of the key incidents Ridley Scott omitted are to be found here: the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, Colon's ineptitude leading to the wrecking of one of his ships, with the relationship between him and the Spanish Court much more convincingly essayed. To Ferdinand, the New World means finance, to Isabella, converts. Both are allowed more depth than in 1492: Conquest of Paradise; Isabella in particular is penned in far more detail than Sigourney Weaver's conspiratorial flirt. Sadly, this high-point of the script brings the low point of the casting, to hysterical effect.Isabella may have been a gung-ho Catholic zealot not averse to having a few hundred heretics tortured to death, but it's hard to believe she was quite as jolly hockey sticks as Rachel Ward's head girl of the chalet school incarnation here. On the other hand, as the king, Tom Selleck, the poor deer, wanders through it all like a man emerging from a serious road accident, aware of his wounds but too numb to take it all in. You just can't help feeling sorry for him.Other casting is similarly erratic. Although hardly memorable, Marlon Brando's Torquemada is at least allowed a motive and rationale for his cruelty that is very much of the time. Robert Davi and Oliver Cotton are both very good in drastically underwritten roles, but Nigel Terry, whose ham acting has near-ruined many a good film, makes the most of the opportunity to ruin a naff one by undermining many of their scenes. A young Catherine Zeta Jones here seems dead set on being the next Rachel Ward: with her disturbing tendency to stare at the ceiling in moments of high emotion as if waiting for a song cue, she is just part of the scenery.Yet the odd thing about The Discovery is that while critics were quick to sneer in anticipation of Ridley Scott's version, it actually comes down much harder on its hero. George Corraface's Columbus has a much nastier side to him than Depardieu's victim of snobbery and class warfare; whereas Scott constantly found or invented excuses, here the explorer has the kind of contradictory fanaticism that sees no need of them, as capable of exploitation and cruelty as of great dreams, and certainly more mercenary in his motives. If Depardieu's incarnation fails his dream for all the right reasons, Corraface's succeeds for all the wrong ones, and he is good enough in these later scenes to dispel at least some of the memory of his incessant would-be dashing grinning of the first half.But the darker side is never tapped by either the confused script or John Glen's painting by numbers direction. The photography is distinctly available light - there is no vision or style here, and despite the higher budget it looks cheaper than its main rival. The New World seems to be little more than a stretch of highly desirable beachfront property ripe for timeshare development, making it hard to see what all the fuss was about. Only Cliff Eidelman's rich and sweepingly romantic score attains the epic status the film aspires to.Too old-fashioned (or not old-fashioned enough) for its own good, this may have made marginally more than 1492 at the US box-office, but it's no surprise that it's now no more than a footnote to Scott's film (which itself is no more than a footnote to Scott's career these days).
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful: The second-worst film of the modern era, 4 January 2009 Author: moonpics-1 from Canada
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
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."
4 out of 9 people found the following review useful: only one ray of hope..., 1 January 2000 Author: barbara-31 from Germany
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.
6 out of 13 people found the following review useful: Christopher Columbus: the Travesty, 10 February 1999 Author: D Throat
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.
7 out of 18 people found the following review useful: The discovery is that the film's a turkey., 21 September 1999 Author: Edward Turner (tedurner@yahoo.com) from England
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.
0 out of 6 people found the following review useful: Ads should have had Columbus balling his fists and proclaiming: "Discover this!", 14 July 2001 Author: Bothan from Birmingham, Alabama
***SPOILER WARNING***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.Rating: BOMB (of four)
Add another review
