Picture this: Not one, not two, but three big-screen films about Christopher Columbus crashing and burning at the theaters in just a few short months back in 1992. It's a cinematic disaster that still raises eyebrows today. But here's where it gets controversial – how we view the explorer himself has flipped completely in modern times. Dive in as we unpack this forgotten flop era, and you might just rethink history's heroes!
Gaumont
It might surprise you, but between August and October of 1992, three theatrical movies about Christopher Columbus hit the screens (check out this head-to-head comparison from Slashfilm for more on two of them: https://www.slashfilm.com/552792/1992s-two-columbus-movies-head-to-head/). For those not in the U.S., know that American kids grew up for generations learning Columbus, the Italian adventurer, 'discovered America.' He was portrayed as a celebrated figure who kicked off the first chapters of U.S. history. In reality, though, he paved the way for a brutal era of colonization and genocide across the Americas – a dark side we've only recently confronted. No more Columbus Day parades for us.
Yet in 1992, with the 500th anniversary of his famous ocean-crossing trip looming, nostalgia lingered. Filmmakers rushed to create grand historical epics celebrating his exploits. Two aimed for Oscar glory with star-studded lineups, while the third was a hilarious send-up of the Columbus legend.
The trio? Ridley Scott's '1492: Conquest of Paradise,' John Glen's 'Christopher Columbus: The Discovery,' and Gerald Thomas' 'Carry On Columbus,' part of Britain's long-running 'Carry On' comedy franchise. Unsurprisingly, all tanked financially. Scott's especially embarrassed, raking in just $7.2 million against a whopping $47 million budget. Clearly, moviegoers weren't buying in – and Scott's snoozer of a film didn't win over critics either.
Ridley Scott's 1492: Conquest of Paradise was a total letdown
Gaumont
To tell them apart: In Scott's '1492,' Gérard Depardieu embodied Columbus, with Sigourney Weaver as Queen Isabella. Supporting roles went to Armand Assante, Frank Langella, Fernando Rey, Tchéky Karyo, and Kevin Dunn. Glen's 'The Discovery' cast Georges Corraface as Columbus and Rachel Ward as Isabella, but the big draw was Marlon Brando as Tomás de Torquemada. Tom Selleck played Ferdinand, alongside Robert Davi, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and a young Benicio del Toro. 'Carry On Columbus' featured Jim Dale as Columbus, surrounded by a roster of British comedy veterans. Fun fact for newcomers: 'Carry On' films are wild, over-the-top parodies in the style of Mel Brooks, ditching any claim to real history for laughs.
Scott's movie grabbed the most attention – for all the wrong reasons. It bombed hard and got slammed. The story traces Columbus preparing for his 1492 Atlantic journey, then landing in North America instead of Asia. But it romanticizes him as a wronged genius, erased from the history books unfairly. Scott shows encounters with Indigenous peoples, yet blames the atrocities – like mistreating natives and forcing them into gold mining – on the Spanish noble Adrien de Moxica (played by Michael Wincott). In this telling, Columbus gets scapegoated for all the New World's horrors and dies in obscurity. It's a flawed, problematic take that paints him as the victim.
Everyone panned 1492: Conquest of Paradise
Gaumont
Reviews were brutal; the film sits at a mere 30% on Rotten Tomatoes (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1492conquestof_paradise) from 30 critics. Newsweek's David Ansen called it 'the least entertaining historical epic I've seen,' summing it up with one word: 'hubris.' He noted Scott's style of bombarding viewers with overblown visuals and sounds – think stormy 15th-century Spain shrouded in fog, racket, and drama (and if you've seen other Ridley Scott flicks, this might ring a bell: https://www.slashfilm.com/731815/every-ridley-scott-movie-ranked-from-worst-to-best/). The Washington Post's Desson Howe praised the flashy visuals but called the plot 'dull as dishwater.' 'Despite Scott's signature spectacular imagery, the story's dead in the water,' he wrote. 'It's all dizzying exaggeration – incredible camera work, slick editing, and a moody soundtrack blending flamenco guitar with synthesizer from avant-garde artist Vangelis.'
Fans avoided it like the plague. And like some of Scott's other projects, such as the notorious 'Kingdom of Heaven' (where the director's cut is often seen as superior: https://www.slashfilm.com/1878052/why-ridley-scott-kingdom-of-heaven-directors-cut-best-version/), editing drama bubbled up. The original theater release clocked in at 150 minutes, trimmed from Scott's fuller vision to tone down violence. Now, a version with six extra minutes exists.
In a 2021 chat with GamesRadar (https://www.gamesradar.com/ridley-scott-interview-house-of-gucci-dune/), Scott reflected on his career's hits and misses, saying he's proud of every one. He even defended '1492,' chalking up its failure to a lack of American stars. 'American audiences don't listen unless it's from Texas or somewhere in the States, right?' he quipped, calling it a personal favorite. Sounds like he's in a club of one!
And this is the part most people miss: Did Scott's film try to rehabilitate Columbus' image, glossing over the genocide he enabled? It's a hot debate – was it whitewashing history for entertainment, or a misguided attempt at nuance? What do you think: Should Columbus get a cinematic comeback, or does he deserve to stay in the shadows? Drop your takes in the comments – agree, disagree, or share your own controversial twist!
