Flawed but definitely deserves more than a 6...Underrated overall

Columbus is without a doubt one of the more controversial figures in history so it should come as no surprise that any film, particularly one that portrays him as the hero, should have an equal amount of controversy. It is also true that Columbus' voyages were one of those monumental moments in history that shaped the course of the river that is humanity. The filmmakers faced the daunting task of making THE Christopher Columbus movie. Of the Columbus movies, this film had the largest budget, the most star power, and lauded itself as a celebration of the 500 year anniversary of Columbus' landing at San Salvador. In other words the bar was set REALLY high. Too high and I think that was the chief failing of this film. It tried to do a bit too much. That it nearly succeeded is a testament to the skill with which it was crafted, and overall it's a surprisingly watchable and engrossing depiction of the life and times of Christopher Columbus.

Getting back to some of the criticisms, I definitely think this film tried to do a little too much. It covered a large period of history from Columbus soliciting his voyages, to the struggle of finding land, the attempts to build a colony, and his ultimate failure as a governor and administrator. Within this epic larger plot the writers weave various subplots about Columbus' inner struggles, his rivarly with the nobles, relationship with the natives as well as the Queen surprisingly well. Toss in an armed rebellion led by the brilliantly cast Michael Wincott and already you have listed the makings of quite a complex and thus potentially easily convoluted film. Amazingly, in my opinion, the film handles all of the above elements well.

Where I was a bit lost on was the religious symbolism of the film. This is where it became a bit much for me. From the burnings of heretics in Spain, to Columbus' meltdown in the monastery, to the divine storm that shatters Columbus' ill-fated colony. It just seemed unnecessary. Though the film offered a balanced portrayal of the Christian religion as well as at least touching on the faith of the Natives, this whole subplot just seemed a bit over the top and quite frankly, cheesy. I realize that in the 15th century, faith played a HUGE part in the fabric of society, but the way these elements were told in the story just didn't quite fit into the overall narrative. The pot was already practically overflowing and this element just simply didn't need to be added.

Another criticism I have is the portrayal of Columbus himself and again I think the filmmakers set the bar a bit too high. Gerard Depardieu did a fantastic job as the idealistic and somewhat delusional Italian navigator. The character of Columbus, however was written as a hero. While his historical feats were daring no doubt, it was actually Columbus himself who initiated many of the brutal practices the film attributes to Moxica and the Spanish nobles. The film briefly mentions his ineptitude as a Governor but again it is shown more as divine influence that Colmbus' city fails, rather than through flaws in the hero. Columbus was portrayed a bit too clean, in my opinion. From what I've read of history, Columbus could be quite brutal and was actually a bitter and and somewhat miserable character towards the end of his life.

These criticisms aside, however, I thought that this was a fine film. Very underrated. The acting is fantastic. The sets, cinematography, and direction are superb and you can see the beginnings of the Ridley Scott's epic style that would later go on to influence his later films such as Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven. So while this film certainly has it's flaws I think it deserves more than the lowly 6.3 it was given on IMDB. It's at least as good as the above mentioned Kingdom of Heaven.