Ignore those critics who dismiss it; this is a worthwhile historical adventure film. “Christopher Columbus: The Discovery” (1992) arrived just seven weeks before Ridley Scott’s “1492: Conquest of Paradise,” both films exploring the same historic story to mark its 500th anniversary. John Glen directed, and he has a solid track record, having helmed five James Bond movies in the ’80s, including “For Your Eyes Only” (1981) and “Octopussy” (1983), which are considered among the better installments of the 007 series. Scott’s film is more artistic and expansive, being longer by 34 minutes, while this one feels tighter in scope. It primarily focuses on the preparations for the expedition, whereas “1492” concentrates on Columbus' experiences after landing in the Atlantic. Additionally, "Discovery" sticks to just the first voyage, unlike “1492,” which includes subsequent expeditions. Both films failed at the box office, but “Discovery” earned more money domestically, especially when you consider its production costs ($40 million versus $47 million for “1492”). They’re both worth watching and comparing if you enjoy real-life adventure stories. This one feels better paced in terms of its structure and doesn't get bogged down in events that take place in the New World. The weakest aspect of "Discovery" is the depiction of the voyage itself, which takes up about half an hour – twice as long as it does in “1492.” That’s understandable, because it’s difficult to make a lengthy sea journey with only men dramatically interesting. Scott's film provided a more convincing (and visually striking) portrayal of the Atlantic crossing. “Discovery” boasts a stronger cast, featuring Georges Corraface as the charismatic lead, though Gérard Depardieu is considered more believable in the role in “1492,” particularly when considering traditional artistic depictions of historical figures. Corraface sometimes comes across as embodying a stereotypical Hollywood version of an explorer, but he’s still effective. Regardless, I appreciate that both versions present a balanced view of Columbus, showcasing both his positive and negative attributes. Benicio Del Toro is also memorable as one of the Spanish sailors with questionable morals. Marlon Brando makes an appearance near the end of his career as the Grand Inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada. Although his part is small, he brings a quiet intensity and wisdom to the role. This was one of only five other films Brando would make. Tom Selleck also performs well as King Ferdinand; critics oddly criticized him, but he’s quite good in the supporting role. Critics largely panned “Discovery” upon its release, quickly joining what they perceived as a negative bandwagon. However, neither film is nearly as bad as they claim. They are definitely worth seeing if you like historical adventures similar to “Mutiny on the Bounty” (1962) and “The Bounty” (1984). Catherine Zeta-Jones stands out as Columbus’ Castilian mistress, Beatriz; this was before she achieved stardom, and she's quite charming at just 21 or 22 years old. Rachel Ward also does a good job as Queen Isabella. Of course, some viewers will likely appreciate Tailinh Agoyo’s portrayal of the chieftain’s daughter for reasons that are obvious. Like “The Bounty,” the women on the islands appear mostly nude. I've heard critics suggest that "Discovery" can only be enjoyed if you don't take it seriously, which doesn't make much sense since it portrays actual historical events; for example, what happened to the Santa Maria and the 39 Spaniards left behind in Hispaniola when Columbus returned to Europe. While no one was literally executed during the voyage, that element was obviously added for dramatic effect. Some people complain about Columbus’ early swashbuckling behavior, but he traveled extensively, and I'm sure he encountered armed individuals on occasion. I myself have been stopped by men with guns while hiking in remote areas, and friends of mine have been involved in fights at bars. Let’s not pretend that these kinds of conflicts don’t occur. One reason why this film and “1492” underperformed was because Columbus had fallen out of favor by 1992 due to the criticisms from liberal academics who denounce him as evil. However, it's undeniable that European colonization of the Americas brought both benefits and drawbacks, largely positive since it introduced things like written language, horses, wheels, wagons, stagecoaches, firearms, trains, industry, advanced architecture, and so on. Let’s not romanticize the idea that the Americas were a paradise before Europeans arrived. There was constant warfare between “Indian” tribes, who are descendants of settlers from Asia. Slavery existed, as did massacres, brutal torture of captives, and widespread human sacrifice in Mesoamerica to appease their gods, along with headhunting in the Amazon. Do I need to elaborate? The notion presented in “The New World” (2005) that Native Americans had never experienced envy or rivalry and didn’t even know what a lie was is completely absurd. I am part-Abenaki. The film runs for 2 hours and was filmed in Portugal, Spain & Malta for the European scenes, the Atlantic Ocean for the sailing sequences, and St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, for the island settings. GRADE: B

Source on TMDB