Amazon.com

One of Ridley Scott's most wrong-headed films, this one (like all of his movies) looks fabulous and sounds utterly ridiculous, almost from the beginning. His first mistake was casting the wonderful Gerard Depardieu as Columbus and forcing him to speak English, which Depardieu does with decided difficulty. After spending way too much time on the ocean with Columbus's three ships (you kind of wish they would sail over the edge of the world), they arrive in the West Indies, only to turn around and sail back. The rest of the film deals with the not particularly comprehensible politics of Columbus's venture, which leads to the violent slaughter of trusting natives by a band of cardboard villains. Depardieu, who radiates sympathy, looks like he's at sea with this material. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (89)

great cinema!
Ridley Scott directed this incredible motion picture about the voyages of Christopher Columbus. Not only is the film about his voyages but it also works quite well as a character study about Columbus. The Columbus depicted here is full of kindess,passion and warmth. He also can be a little selfish,arrogant and at times sarcastic during this film. Gerard Depardieu plays Columbus and he does a great job portraying him. I don't have a problem with him being from France. Afterall Columbus was European and so is Depardieu. The supporting cast is zestful with some excellent performances. Armand Assante was good playing Sanchez. So was Michael Wincott who played the evil Moxica. Also the score for this film was done by New-Age musician Vangelis. And his score is remarkable. Both the movie and the soundtrack go hand in hand. But this film is an acquired taste. Some might be turned off by it's subject matter. And some might be lured in by it. If Columbus interests you and you like films that look and sound good. This is the one you've been waiting for. The rest is common sense.

Stunning film, historically accurate
This is a must-see cinematic landmark of the 90's. There will NEVER be another Columbus movie to top this one. Gerard Depardieu is perfect as Columbus, his French accent helps illustrate the man's foreigner-out-of-placeness in mediaeval Spain. Depardieu's portrayal is very deep and thought-provoking, his eyes say it all. Every word is full of meaning, there is a sad sincerity to Columbus' character here; his intentions in the New World were beautiful, however, due to peer-pressure in the Spanish courts, he is too weak to stop the Conquistadors from marauding this fragile Paradise. Depardieu's character really shows how much Columbus was more of an explorer than a governor, but never got around to fulfilling his dreams due to his short-sightedness and stubborn disposition in relation to the Spanish nobles and those in power. The film is extraordinarily accurate in historical details, from the setting in the time of the harsh Inquisition, the costumes, and the characters in the film. Sanchez (Armand Assante), to history known as Gabriel Sanchez, grand treasurer of the crown of Aragon, was instrumental in convincing Queen Isabella (Sigourney Weaver) to finance the quest. Columbus actually sent him the very first account of his First Voyage to the West Indies on the way back home. Pinzon (Tcheky Karyo) was also the captain of the Pinta, as depicted in the film, and his ties to Santangel in the film are accurate (due to a debt he owed to the Crown through which Santangel was the financial mediator). The role of Adrian de Moxica (portrayed by Michael Wincott in grand form), Columbus' political nemesis during most of the movie on the island of Hispaniola, was also accurate. This movie's cinematography and the wonderful soundtrack by Vangelis are gorgeous and haunting, frightening at times. This is a great film, and ranks with "Blade Runner", "Alien", "Thelma&Louise", and "Gladiator" as Ridley Scott's best. Go to your local video shop and rent it right now.

Stunning!!
This movie is incredible! The score by Vangelis is
breathtaking. I can't believe this has not been
released on dvd. One of Ridley's best!!!!

Realistc or Idealistc Conquest?
We could clearly see that there were many occurrences that the writers left out in Conquest of Paradise. Here, we see an idealistic version of what occurred after Christopher Columbus discovered the New world. The writers produced a cross-word puzzle that, us, the viewers were able to put together before the climax of the movie developed with intensity. I enjoyed the money greatly, yet I was expecting to se the other side of the Conquest, the horrible side. I wanted the rest of the audience to understand that the results of the conquest was not as pleasant as we have told our children. In Conquest of Paradise Gérard Depadieu is portrayed as a hero, or so we are led to think, yet we don't have a chance to see the other version of the story. I was expecting to see how the indigenous culture basically came to be extinct; how their religion was disregarded and Christianity was implemented. We don't see this in this movie; we only see one side of the dilemma.

Ridley Scott's best film
Ridley Scott, best known for such films as Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, is well-known for creating movies that are visually stunning. A trained graphic artist, Scott has an understanding of composition, color, and lighting that few other directors come close to mastering. What Spielberg does for pacing and narration of stories that can be followed by all, Scott does for visual magic. And 1492 is arguably Scott's best work.

Unfortunately, this movie did not receive the popular nor critical attention that it so rightly deserved. There are many possible reasons for this: at the time it was introduced (1992) there was another Columbus film that was really bad. I'm sure many of the negative reviews of that film didn't help ticket sales for this one. Secondly, the political correctness of the time had cast Columbus into an unfortunately negative image. The Columbus in this movie is neither the hero nor the villian extremists wish to make him out to be, so the film does tend to alienate both extremes in its attempt to portray Columbus as that one kind of historical figure many people seem to have a problem with: a human being.

The film itself does have its flaws. The script is a little awkward, as is the pacing. But on the visual and technical side, this is a film that powerfully transports the viewer to that time. Every scene seems obsessed over. The costumes, the position of the sun, the light, even the food. You can feel the cold, the heat, the dust.

Even the music is wonderful. Most of it is electronic based, composed by Vangelis who is best known for his theme to the movie Chariots of Fire. Some have complained this is a bad mismatch, as electronic music wasn't around in Columbus' era. However, neither were contemporary orchestras that drive the scores to many historical movies. While at first unusual the soundtrack for this movie is a perfect fit, serving to powerfully infuse Scott's brilliant visual composition with just the right emotional vibration.

Gerard Depardieu would not have been my first choice for this role, but his performance is certainly very impressive. While it's not the Columbus I was expecting, it is a wonderfully human performance. Many have griped about Depardieu's accent, claiming he's difficult to understand and feeling it's not sufficiently Italian. However, keep in mind that Columbus was from Genoa (and remember where that is). As all of the Spanish characters are speaking English in this film, Depardieu's French accent stands out from everyone else in the same way that Columbus' accent most likely stood out from his Spanish companions 500 years ago. What some people seem rather bothered by I actually found rather fitting.

So what do we have here? A movie that's visually stunning and a technical masterpiece, but a little awkward in the script. If you've been impressed by the visual aspects of other Ridley Scott films, notably Legend, Blade Runner, and Black Hawk Down, be sure to see this. Put aside your prejudices, forget historical authenticity, and simply enjoy one of the most visually impressive films available.

(I was originally going to give this movie 4 stars in recognition that it does have some flaws. However, the visual qualities of the film so make up for the shortcomings that I had to move it up to 5.) ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Has flaws, but I love it anyway
I'm giving this film 5 stars despite some small things some folks would consider flaws in the film. I am still giving it 5 stars because it happens to be a film I keep watching over and over again, and I never get tired of a single scene in the whole flick.
Jean-Hughes Anglade and Eric Stoltz are perfect together as old childhood friends out to rob a Federal bank in France on Bastille Day.
Here are the reasons why I love this movie. It really has a lot packed into it. It has a ton of humor, though much of it is dark humor. The extended drug use scene and tour of Paris must be about as close as you can come to honestly portraying being high on film. The pace of the action never slows down, and each scene consistently draws me in. There are a whole bunch of little original ideas and surprises thrown in that makes the film always interesting.
Memorable moments: the dead cat in the hallway, "riding the dragon", the monkey and Billie Holiday, viking films, Ron Jeremy, the ex-con joke, Eric pondering the next move.....
If you like anything by Tarantino, then you owe it to yourself to check this out. Honestly, I come back to watch this far more often than I do anything by QT.

Better than Reservoir Dogs
Roger Avary is the true talent behind Quentin Tarantino (at least according to NBK producer Jane Hamsher) and his first solo job is impressive, if a bit slow. The main heist doesn't really get going until the halfway point. But it's really a character study, anyway.

Zed (Eric Stoltz) is called by Parisian buddy Eric (Jean-Hugues Anglade) to help him break into a reserve bank vault on Bastille Day, one of the few banks open on that day.

Zed falls for a student/escort supplied to him through a cab driver, takes several recreational drugs with Eric and his friends (including Spandau Ballet's Gary Kemp), and wakes up the next morning, not quite ready for the job. The job keeps Zed downstairs surrounded by the noise of the drill, so he never notices that things go very wrong.

And who happens to have a part-time job at the bank?

Avary is quoted as saying that producer Lawrence Bender (Pulp Fiction) called him up and said he had a bank set free for a few weeks, did he have a script involving a bank he wanted to film? Avary said yes, he did. Then he wrote one...this.

Comparisons to Reservoir Dogs are inescapable (even on the video box), but the two films are very different, although similarly dark in tone. I think this one is actually better.

I wish I was Zoe!
I wish I was Zoe so that someone would have killed me before I started watching this drivel.
This film was reccomended to me and all I can say is I'm glad I didn't pay to see it.
Quentin Tarantino and Lawrence Bender produced this. I must admit, I find that very hard to believe. Not because of the slow pace, crappy story and characters (Although that is surprisng for those two) but it's the incredible lack of money that surprised me most of all. Don't get me wrong on this, I don't care if a film is made on pennies. BUT IT HAS TO BE GOOD.
Robert Rodrigiez made El Mariachi on seven thousand dollars. This looks like it was made on seven cents.
I personally think that this film was no more than one of Tarantino's old Video archives buddies asking for a bit of money to make a film. Tarantino being the nice guy that he supposedly is, not to mention a film addict, was curious to see what his friend would produce. Now it went one of two ways.
Either Tarantino and Bender gave him the money and left him to do the whole thing on his own without any tip offs, or the guy just kept all the money, went to the local supermarket to pick up a crappy video camera (cos that's what it looks like) and shot the film without a care in the world eagerly awaiting the rap party.
Anyway I f you find all this hard to believe (Just like I did) then get hold of this and find out yourself. But make sure you do yourself a favour and when you start to get incredibly bored, turn the film off. Take my advice, It doesn't get any better.

I would be surprised if Lawrence Bender and Quentin Tarantino didn't agree with me!

craziness
You guys are nuts. Killing Zoe may not be the bank robbery film that Heat is, but it has many more aspects to it, namely gratuitous sex, drugs, and violence. Yes, the bathroom scene is a little much, and the movie is unrealistic. But if you're going to movies to experience realism, what's the point? Just walk outside. Killing Zoe is a perfect distraction for any of you out there who, like me, are to entrenched in reality to fly to Europe and take heroin for the first time the night before a bank robbery you didn't plan for at all. I'm personally insulted by the stupidity that would be necessary to call this movie predictable, simply because I didn't anticipate it was possible for such a level of it to exist and I hate it when I realize that dumb people still have the capability of suprising me. This movie is a classic.

Killing The Audience
Predictable from the first 5 minutes into the movie. Overdone plot about a robbery gone wrong and the safe-cracker hero who has a heart. Nothing original here except for scenes so vulgar and tasteless that it would make Howard Stern turn in disgust.

The script is nil and the acting less than stellar. The conincidences purposefully placed in the film to support the plot are too great to be credible and the action too dull to keep it interesting. I frankly could have done without the grotesque heroin-induced sodomy scenes. Watch "Heat" instead if you want to see a great bank heist film. Don't waste your time or money on this one, it's a sleeper at best: A negative rating is called for. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

TO LIVE OR TO DIE?
What does it take to live when your chances are equal to a zero? What does it mean to survive at the expense of the others? WWII, Greece, Germans, Jews, camps, death... A young, strong boxer has a chance to fight. The SS would have fun betting on it. If he wins, he gets to live a little longer and a loaf of bread. Many people get a piece of this bread but most of all is his father and a brother. They are all he still have. He wins and lives. The looser dies. Every time he wins, he saves whatever left of the family. Every time he wins, he kills the looser. At the end, only he survives. The whole family is dead. All friends are dead. Was he right? Was not it easier to die? Yes, it was easier to die but he selects the difficult way of living being responsible for deaths of other fighters. He was able to prolong lives of the loved ones. He lived to tell the story and to fight another day. His spirit was not broken but triumphed.

This is an outstanding film with an excellent cast and the deepest power I have seen for a while. All I can say is see it for yourself and enjoy the best.

Horrifying account of the depravity of man
I have just finished viewing this movie and am speechless. First, to have the movie shot on location at Auschwitz with the remains of the camp in use and in view was numbing. To actually see the "mock" selections, assurances of a hot shower and the lie of the "health camp" for children put a touch of realism to some of the Holocaust survivor accounts that I have read. I did not live through the Holocaust but if this movie was one tenth of one percent of what it really was like, may God comfort and be merciful to the survivors and their families. I have never heard of the main character, played by Willem Dafoe, but he must have been a very brave man. I salute you, sir and as a Christian, I ask your forgiveness for what was done to the Jewish people in the name of Jesus Christ. I cautiously recommend this film for any serious student of the Holocaust, and urge that the message therein never be forgotten or repeated. Thank you.

Better, more realistic than Schindler's List/Dafoe is Great
Triumph of the Spirit is probably the most realistic dramatic recreation of the horrors of Auschwitz I've seen. Director Robert Young is a pro at bringing controversial independent films to fruition, and Dafoe gives one of his best performances here. He portrays Salamo Arouch, a Greek Jewish Olympic boxer deported to Auschwitz. This true story was filmed on location at Auschwitz and Birkenau (Auschwitz II) and we are shown the death machine in full operation. Again there is an intensity and realism to this film that makes Schindler's List pale in comparison.

Edward James Olmos portrays a gypsy singer who becomes a key ally of Salamo; Gypsy entertains the SS and Salamo boxes for them while they hope for the Russians to come. One relatively minor flaw of the film is that the actors who portray SS and camp guards seem benign, almost nice at times, and I really doubt the actual female guards were as good looking as a few of the Frauleins here.

But a good touch of realism is the languages. The Germans speak German, the Poles speak Polish, and the Russians speak Russian all without subtitles (compare this to Schindler's List). And the make up job was great; the victims really looked like they were on death's door.

If you want to know about the Holocaust this drama is near the top of the list with the best documentaries. And Polanski's "The Piano" should be good too.

The best Holocaust Movie
I agree with Leonard Ross, this movie is much better than Schindler's List. It is much more accurate and gritty and realistic in its portrayal of life in the camps. It is also a movie about family bonds, love and relationships and shows how these bonds were ravaged by what took place during WW II. Short of showing actual film footage in my classroom, this movie speaks volumes about the plight of the Jewish people during the Holocaust.

Even better than "Schindler's List"
This is one of the best movies I have ever seen, and, alongwith Life is Beautiful, the best Holocaust movie made (in myopinion). Unlike Schindler's List, this movie portrays graphically what was really going on in the Auschwitz death camp (and other camps as well). It showed people undressing, preparing to enter the gas chamber. It showed the hellish daily life of the camp inmates--the agonizing work they had to do for the majority of each day, their horrific sleeping conditions, their deprivation of food, and the incredibly frequent beating and murdering of the prisoners by sick, sadistic Nazis. What really got to me the most was how the main character was actually getting thinner from starvation as the movie went on!

Scindler's List was a very dramatic, moving, well done movie, but it didn't accurately portray the true horrors of the Holocaust. The director was probably afraid to show anything that would be too graphic and disturbing for the general public and film critics. Spielberg was right in being cautious, as few people would be able to stomach a movie like Triumph of the Spirit. That is probably why this movie is virtually unknown.

My only complaint about this movie is that the main character gave a rather limp performance. A better actor in his place would have made this an absolutely perfect movie. ... Read more

Reviews (89)

great cinema!
Ridley Scott directed this incredible motion picture about the voyages of Christopher Columbus. Not only is the film about his voyages but it also works quite well as a character study about Columbus. The Columbus depicted here is full of kindess,passion and warmth. He also can be a little selfish,arrogant and at times sarcastic during this film. Gerard Depardieu plays Columbus and he does a great job portraying him. I don't have a problem with him being from France. Afterall Columbus was European and so is Depardieu. The supporting cast is zestful with some excellent performances. Armand Assante was good playing Sanchez. So was Michael Wincott who played the evil Moxica. Also the score for this film was done by New-Age musician Vangelis. And his score is remarkable. Both the movie and the soundtrack go hand in hand. But this film is an acquired taste. Some might be turned off by it's subject matter. And some might be lured in by it. If Columbus interests you and you like films that look and sound good. This is the one you've been waiting for. The rest is common sense.

Stunning film, historically accurate
This is a must-see cinematic landmark of the 90's. There will NEVER be another Columbus movie to top this one. Gerard Depardieu is perfect as Columbus, his French accent helps illustrate the man's foreigner-out-of-placeness in mediaeval Spain. Depardieu's portrayal is very deep and thought-provoking, his eyes say it all. Every word is full of meaning, there is a sad sincerity to Columbus' character here; his intentions in the New World were beautiful, however, due to peer-pressure in the Spanish courts, he is too weak to stop the Conquistadors from marauding this fragile Paradise. Depardieu's character really shows how much Columbus was more of an explorer than a governor, but never got around to fulfilling his dreams due to his short-sightedness and stubborn disposition in relation to the Spanish nobles and those in power. The film is extraordinarily accurate in historical details, from the setting in the time of the harsh Inquisition, the costumes, and the characters in the film. Sanchez (Armand Assante), to history known as Gabriel Sanchez, grand treasurer of the crown of Aragon, was instrumental in convincing Queen Isabella (Sigourney Weaver) to finance the quest. Columbus actually sent him the very first account of his First Voyage to the West Indies on the way back home. Pinzon (Tcheky Karyo) was also the captain of the Pinta, as depicted in the film, and his ties to Santangel in the film are accurate (due to a debt he owed to the Crown through which Santangel was the financial mediator). The role of Adrian de Moxica (portrayed by Michael Wincott in grand form), Columbus' political nemesis during most of the movie on the island of Hispaniola, was also accurate. This movie's cinematography and the wonderful soundtrack by Vangelis are gorgeous and haunting, frightening at times. This is a great film, and ranks with "Blade Runner", "Alien", "Thelma&Louise", and "Gladiator" as Ridley Scott's best. Go to your local video shop and rent it right now.

Stunning!!
This movie is incredible! The score by Vangelis is
breathtaking. I can't believe this has not been
released on dvd. One of Ridley's best!!!!

Realistc or Idealistc Conquest?
We could clearly see that there were many occurrences that the writers left out in Conquest of Paradise. Here, we see an idealistic version of what occurred after Christopher Columbus discovered the New world. The writers produced a cross-word puzzle that, us, the viewers were able to put together before the climax of the movie developed with intensity. I enjoyed the money greatly, yet I was expecting to se the other side of the Conquest, the horrible side. I wanted the rest of the audience to understand that the results of the conquest was not as pleasant as we have told our children. In Conquest of Paradise Gérard Depadieu is portrayed as a hero, or so we are led to think, yet we don't have a chance to see the other version of the story. I was expecting to see how the indigenous culture basically came to be extinct; how their religion was disregarded and Christianity was implemented. We don't see this in this movie; we only see one side of the dilemma.

Ridley Scott's best film
Ridley Scott, best known for such films as Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, is well-known for creating movies that are visually stunning. A trained graphic artist, Scott has an understanding of composition, color, and lighting that few other directors come close to mastering. What Spielberg does for pacing and narration of stories that can be followed by all, Scott does for visual magic. And 1492 is arguably Scott's best work.

Unfortunately, this movie did not receive the popular nor critical attention that it so rightly deserved. There are many possible reasons for this: at the time it was introduced (1992) there was another Columbus film that was really bad. I'm sure many of the negative reviews of that film didn't help ticket sales for this one. Secondly, the political correctness of the time had cast Columbus into an unfortunately negative image. The Columbus in this movie is neither the hero nor the villian extremists wish to make him out to be, so the film does tend to alienate both extremes in its attempt to portray Columbus as that one kind of historical figure many people seem to have a problem with: a human being.

The film itself does have its flaws. The script is a little awkward, as is the pacing. But on the visual and technical side, this is a film that powerfully transports the viewer to that time. Every scene seems obsessed over. The costumes, the position of the sun, the light, even the food. You can feel the cold, the heat, the dust.

Even the music is wonderful. Most of it is electronic based, composed by Vangelis who is best known for his theme to the movie Chariots of Fire. Some have complained this is a bad mismatch, as electronic music wasn't around in Columbus' era. However, neither were contemporary orchestras that drive the scores to many historical movies. While at first unusual the soundtrack for this movie is a perfect fit, serving to powerfully infuse Scott's brilliant visual composition with just the right emotional vibration.

Gerard Depardieu would not have been my first choice for this role, but his performance is certainly very impressive. While it's not the Columbus I was expecting, it is a wonderfully human performance. Many have griped about Depardieu's accent, claiming he's difficult to understand and feeling it's not sufficiently Italian. However, keep in mind that Columbus was from Genoa (and remember where that is). As all of the Spanish characters are speaking English in this film, Depardieu's French accent stands out from everyone else in the same way that Columbus' accent most likely stood out from his Spanish companions 500 years ago. What some people seem rather bothered by I actually found rather fitting.

So what do we have here? A movie that's visually stunning and a technical masterpiece, but a little awkward in the script. If you've been impressed by the visual aspects of other Ridley Scott films, notably Legend, Blade Runner, and Black Hawk Down, be sure to see this. Put aside your prejudices, forget historical authenticity, and simply enjoy one of the most visually impressive films available.

(I was originally going to give this movie 4 stars in recognition that it does have some flaws. However, the visual qualities of the film so make up for the shortcomings that I had to move it up to 5.) ... Read more

Reviews (7)

A brilliant piece of art depending on your expectations.
To me, Roger Avary's Mr. Stitch is one of the most underrated movies ever. Yes, it's sparse special fx and some sets may look cheap, but hell, this isn't what Mr. Stitch is all about, in the same way as Gene Roddenberry's "Star Trek: The Next Generation" isn't about science fiction.

If you're looking for great fx or hollywood style entertainment, then you'd be ill-advised with Mr. Stitch, this is not the kind of movie to watch with friends at a video party. It's the fusion of utterly brilliant, thought provoking dialogues with truly magnificent music (by tomandandy) where this piece of art excels. Mr. Stitch has a timeless quality to it and if watched alone and without any distraction (recommended) it creates a unique, almost hypnotic mood. I especially like the beautiful night sky scene.

As so often, it's all a matter of taste, but by no means should Mr. Stitch be called a failure as it definately succeeds in transporting it's message to those inclined to listen carefully enough.

If you prefer "Last Light" to "Dead Man Walking", "Dark City" to "Matrix", "Supernova" to "Star Wars", "Sweet November" to "Sleepless in Seattle" or "Blade Runner" to "Minority Report", then, I guess, you're compatible with Mr. Stitch and there's a very good chance that you'll love it.

Personally, I'd pay nearly any price if this little gem came out on DVD.

awesome
this movie is awesome.....if you dont wanna rent it then def keep your eyes open for it to be on scifi again

A brilliant failure
I must say I was totally glued to the screen during the first 40 minutes of the movie. While a number of old ingredients were present in the story, some twists of modern science were carefully applied. The vast potential of the mix was immensely evident, and unfolding suspense carefully adminstered to the viewer.

Many movies seem to be released in pairs (such as Volcano & Dante's Peak, Deep Impact & Armageddon...), and such was the case with this one too: it explores some elements akin to the film Powder.

Unfortunately, as the movie went on, the story solved itself towards the ending in a very predictable, traditional way. Which is sad, since this film had all the possibilities to be something truly unique. While a lot of the film was artistically extremely high-brow, a few ugly bits here and there damaged the effect.

The soundtrack was similar to the movie itself: something very interesting and potential was on the works by "Tomandandy", but a number of searing flaws ruined the whole.

Bizzare and weird in a tradtion to "Brazil!"
A modern day Frankenstein story. Rutger Hauer is one of the many scientist who have created a human from 88 different people who donated there bodies to science. One problem. in his sleep he is haunted by the souls jumbled in his resseurected body. Starring Rutger Hauer, Wil Weaton, Nia Peeples, and Ron Pearlman. Made by in assosiation with the SciFi Channel.

Pretentious, boring, art-wannabe timewaster
So the director shared an Oscar with Tarantino and apparently some producer gave hime a big fat check to make this pretentious "thoughtful" SF disaster. Don't waste your time cuz nothing works in boring "art" piece. Actually it looks like it would properly work as a stage play..well, maybe not. "Killing Zoe" was an okay flick but this turd is as bad as "Closetland". Mr. Hauer has wasted his talent with yet another bomb but what's new. ... Read more