From: bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu (Greg Bole)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Fav Directors
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:31:05 GMT
Organization: HHMI/Human Genetics, Univ of Pa.

In article <Bvoz7E.Cn8@sci.kun.nl>, caspar@sci.kun.nl (Caspar Terheggen) writes:
>>Just for fun, I wonder what some favourite directors are out there.
 
> I personally like Ridley Scott very much.

So do I...so do many people...which is why I'll be *very* interested in 
seeing others reactions to _1492: Conquest of Paradise_!

(Not any major spoilers to speak of)

I'm still not sure if it was the movie, or me that was to blame.  I was kind 
of tired, and I was expecting ALOT...  Hmmmmm...  Gerard was very good in his 
role, even though he was hard to understand, and it was very odd hearing a 
French accent from an Italian explorer.  Armand Assante was very cool, but 
alot of the other roles were miscast.

The main bad-guy was a cardboard cut-out, in fact the same actor that played
Sir Guy of Gisbourne in _Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves_...looking and sounding
*exactly* the same.  <sigh>  It was nice seeing Steven Waddington (Major Duncan
Heyworth in _Mohicans_) so soon again, he played one of Chris' brothers.  The
violence was *VERY* graphic: strangulations, live people burning, hands being
chopped off, blood spraying everywhere, brutal butcherings...and I didn't feel
it was as effectively used as in other films.  And what bothered me the most
was that I didn't believe that this could really be the story of Columbus.
He was always in the thick of things...did all the fighting, had a devoted
wife, helped build the town, was a visonary that was misunderstood...it was 
just layed on a bit too thick.

Another thing that was suprising was what I felt was very poor editing...
The story really jumped around, and many scenes were cut VERY abruptly.
The supporting characters were hard to learn (I couldn't really remember any of
the names, and was confused by some popping out of almost nowhere). 
Unfortunatly Scott also committed a major editing faux pas in my book: he
cut from a very dark scene to a dazzling bright one, don't you hate that?
And he did it three times!

The Vangelis score was for the most part excellent...sometimes I thought it
distracted from the story a bit, when it was trying to set the scene a little
TOO much...but was effective and moving more often than not.

All this having been said, it *did* have some neat fighting, and some REALLY
beautiful cinimatography.  Depardieu had some moving scenes, and the costumes
were fantastic.  I'm intensely curious to how others react to this film.  I
didn't think the audience I saw it with was too impressed.  I heard people
talking about problems they had with it as they walked out.  But I have to
admit...it takes a *great* director to really fail in such a grandious way.
It wasn't a "safe" movie, Scott and company seemed to really be reaching...the
just missed by a bit in my mind.

Once again...it might have been me.  Maybe my expectations were just too high,
maybe I didn't enter it in the right frame of mind, or maybe it was just a 
dissapointing movie...  You be the judge.

Greg Bole                                  "In case your aim is better 
bole@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu                   than your judgement."
                                   Daniel Day-Lewis in _Last of the Mohicans_
Newsgroups: rec.arts.wobegon