Ok, it was a financial disaster. So what? The film itself may have a few too many cliches but is not bad; I'd say it is actually very enjoyable for sci-fi fans.
468 Reviews
Not bad at all
dale.launer@gte.net29 January 2005
I just had to disagree with the first guy who thought it was simply awful. This is a big budget movie and it looks it. There are a number of metaphors going on in this story - maybe too many. But it really has a MaxMax on the Water feel to it. It's actually pretty fun and like the Mad Max movies - doesn't take itself too seriously.
This was one of those movies that just got creamed by the press because they get very upset when movies cost a lot and in their minds - too much.
Also - Costner was becoming a very big star - and the press loves to buildup stars and once their huge, they love to tear them down. This was a tear down.
Heaven's Gate wasn't awful - but just too slow. This movie isn't awful either, and neither is it slow. And if you're a motorhead - its extra fun. Dennis Hopper chews up the scenery like a famished dinosaur and he's so much fun he makes Kevin's character look a little under-written.
This was one of those movies that just got creamed by the press because they get very upset when movies cost a lot and in their minds - too much.
Also - Costner was becoming a very big star - and the press loves to buildup stars and once their huge, they love to tear them down. This was a tear down.
Heaven's Gate wasn't awful - but just too slow. This movie isn't awful either, and neither is it slow. And if you're a motorhead - its extra fun. Dennis Hopper chews up the scenery like a famished dinosaur and he's so much fun he makes Kevin's character look a little under-written.
NOT the worst movie ever made
reporterman20009 September 2003
I want the Costner bashers to sit down and watch "Rebirth of the Mothra III" on Sci-Fi Channel some time. Then they'll know that they have seen the worst movie ever made.
"Waterworld" is an escapist fantasy/action picture, not unlike the James Bond and Indiana Jones pictures. Costner's performance works on exactly the same level as the Connery/Moore/Brosnan portrayals of 007 and Harrison Ford's portrayal of Indy -- straightforward, grim, stoic, a little mean-spirited, a little cruel, unafraid of dirt, grime, death, or salt water.
It's not perfect by any means. I'm sure Costner hacked it to pieces in order to accommodate the two-hour-running-time maxim imposed by the studio, so that corporate could get their investment back. Now is the time for the extended DVD version; maybe that will explain where all those cigarettes came from, and how the Smokers converted raw crude into gasoline.
7 out of 10. Costner bashers should get over themselves and start giving Michael Bay and George Lucas what they deserve.
"Waterworld" is an escapist fantasy/action picture, not unlike the James Bond and Indiana Jones pictures. Costner's performance works on exactly the same level as the Connery/Moore/Brosnan portrayals of 007 and Harrison Ford's portrayal of Indy -- straightforward, grim, stoic, a little mean-spirited, a little cruel, unafraid of dirt, grime, death, or salt water.
It's not perfect by any means. I'm sure Costner hacked it to pieces in order to accommodate the two-hour-running-time maxim imposed by the studio, so that corporate could get their investment back. Now is the time for the extended DVD version; maybe that will explain where all those cigarettes came from, and how the Smokers converted raw crude into gasoline.
7 out of 10. Costner bashers should get over themselves and start giving Michael Bay and George Lucas what they deserve.
Waterworld may not have fulfilled its premise, but it's still great fun.
Li-123 July 2003
*** out of ****
Sort of like a Mad Max meets Indiana Jones set on a planet-wide ocean, Waterworld hit theaters back in 1995 with a surprisingly decent critical reception but unforgiving responses from the masses, resulting in a domestic box office tally just north of half of the movie's infamouse 175 million dollar budget. Ever since, there's been quite a bit of debate over whether the film earned money back on its huge production costs (naturally, the movie's detractors say no, while the fans say yes, and it was a hit overseas and on video).
I'm actually surprised Waterworld bombed as it did in the U.S., given that audiences (myself included) have a predilection for big, dumb, blockbuster fun. Hey, there's got to be an explanation for why Jerry Bruckheimer is cinema's most powerful producer. And it's not as if though word-of-mouth after the premiere killed the movie (Waterworld actually showed very good legs at the box office, considering its somewhat meager opening weekend).
I think part of the critical lashes stems from its budget, which led people to believe this movie would be a flop no matter what. I've even heard plenty of complaints from people that never every buck appeared to be on-screen. These days, you never hear such complaints because movies almost as expensive as Waterworld are becoming commonplace, which annoys me in that most blockbusters these days are packed with CGI as Waterworld was not, thus inevitably it had to be about as expensive as it was (filmed on the water, sinking sets, tough conditions, it's a miracle the movie was even finished).
As most everyone knows, Waterworld takes place sometime in the unspecified future where the Earth has been covered by water from the melted icecaps. Kevin Costner stars as the Mariner, a Mad Max-ish loner on the ocean who's boat boasts an impressive array of sails and devices. An opening scene introduces us to the deadly lifestyle of the open sea, with "pirates" ready to plunder and murder to get what they want.
The Mariner arrives at an atoll (a very large trading post) to trade, encounters some trouble when he refuses to stay behind and impregnate a young woman, and is thus imprisoned (and also discovered to be part fish, it turns out he's got gill slits behind his ears and he's got webbed feet). Just as he's to be executed, he's saved when "pirates" called the Smokers invade the atoll looking for a girl who apparently has a map tatooed on her back that leads the way to the mythical Dryland (whether or not such a myth existed before the girl is unknown). So said girl and her foster mother (Jeanne Tripplehorn) save the Mariner, who promises to take them with him. But being a loner, he doesn't appreciate their company. Meanwhile, the Smokers continue their hunt for the girl to continue the search for Dryland.
Even though Waterworld has a great, if also entirely implausible, premise and a fun story, it's not driven by its script. Written by David Twohy (the genius responsible for sci-fi greats The Arrival and Pitch Black), he shows none of the ear for dialogue he displayed in those aformentioned thrillers. Inconsistency abounds in the atoller's lifestyles, as well as their beliefs. No one (except for the Mariner) is aware that there's ground below the water, but they never seem to question where dirt-which is a rare commodity-comes from. The movie's got all sorts of little problems along those lines, but I don't think they're really worth mentioning.
What makes the movie worth watching is the adventure. The movie's all about the search for Dryland, and the journey for it is an exciting and thrilling one. Spectacular action sequences abound, from large-scale battle sequences to boat chases. In fact, the action is the movie's highlight. Director Kevin Reynolds' has an eye for staging and filming fight scenes and gun battles, delivering all this action with plenty of high-energy flair and virtuoso stunts. The attack on the atoll, an eleven-minute setpiece, was 1995's second most thrilling action sequence (right behind the Battle of Stirling Bridge in Braveheart). Also equally thrilling is the climactic battle aboard the Smokers' tanker, which displays some of the largest pyrotechnics I've ever seen.
To give the adventure an extra boost, the film gives a genuine attempt at character development and actually comes off not half-bad. Kevin Costner's basically aping Mel Gibson with his own rendition of Mad Max, and while playing a part man/part fish is pretty ridiculous, I'd have to say he's quite sincere and convincing in the role. I'm not the world's biggest Costner fan, but I'll be the first in line to say he's sorely underrated as an actor. Tina Majorino is a bit annoying as the cute girl, and I find it rather baffling that her character has Chinese characters tattooed on her back, even though she's clearly caucasian. Dennis Hopper is a hell of a lot of fun as the Deacon, head of the Smokers, playing his role as both villain and comic relief (he even gets in a priceless scene with a fake eye). But faring best of all is the gorgeous Jeanne Tripplehorn as the requisite love interest. I've always been a big fan of hers, and while I wouldn't call this a great performance, she's full of energy and vitality as the tough, strong-willed heroine who doesn't give in to demands so easily.
One of Waterworld's biggest flaws is the generally cheesy acting from the supporting cast. Most everyone in this movie has a different accent (except for the leads, of course, who are distinctly American), which I assume was meant to give the flavoring of variety, but it makes the delivery of the already silly dialogue twice as silly.
That problem aside, I found myself perfectly open to Waterworld's invigorating action and adventure. There was a lengthier version shown on network TV in the film's broadcast premiere, which I thought made improvements on both plot and pacing (the theatrical release runs a fast-paced 136 minutes, and I think the network version is actually almost forty minutes longer). Wish I'd taped it, but hopefully it'll end up as a special edition release on DVD.
Sort of like a Mad Max meets Indiana Jones set on a planet-wide ocean, Waterworld hit theaters back in 1995 with a surprisingly decent critical reception but unforgiving responses from the masses, resulting in a domestic box office tally just north of half of the movie's infamouse 175 million dollar budget. Ever since, there's been quite a bit of debate over whether the film earned money back on its huge production costs (naturally, the movie's detractors say no, while the fans say yes, and it was a hit overseas and on video).
I'm actually surprised Waterworld bombed as it did in the U.S., given that audiences (myself included) have a predilection for big, dumb, blockbuster fun. Hey, there's got to be an explanation for why Jerry Bruckheimer is cinema's most powerful producer. And it's not as if though word-of-mouth after the premiere killed the movie (Waterworld actually showed very good legs at the box office, considering its somewhat meager opening weekend).
I think part of the critical lashes stems from its budget, which led people to believe this movie would be a flop no matter what. I've even heard plenty of complaints from people that never every buck appeared to be on-screen. These days, you never hear such complaints because movies almost as expensive as Waterworld are becoming commonplace, which annoys me in that most blockbusters these days are packed with CGI as Waterworld was not, thus inevitably it had to be about as expensive as it was (filmed on the water, sinking sets, tough conditions, it's a miracle the movie was even finished).
As most everyone knows, Waterworld takes place sometime in the unspecified future where the Earth has been covered by water from the melted icecaps. Kevin Costner stars as the Mariner, a Mad Max-ish loner on the ocean who's boat boasts an impressive array of sails and devices. An opening scene introduces us to the deadly lifestyle of the open sea, with "pirates" ready to plunder and murder to get what they want.
The Mariner arrives at an atoll (a very large trading post) to trade, encounters some trouble when he refuses to stay behind and impregnate a young woman, and is thus imprisoned (and also discovered to be part fish, it turns out he's got gill slits behind his ears and he's got webbed feet). Just as he's to be executed, he's saved when "pirates" called the Smokers invade the atoll looking for a girl who apparently has a map tatooed on her back that leads the way to the mythical Dryland (whether or not such a myth existed before the girl is unknown). So said girl and her foster mother (Jeanne Tripplehorn) save the Mariner, who promises to take them with him. But being a loner, he doesn't appreciate their company. Meanwhile, the Smokers continue their hunt for the girl to continue the search for Dryland.
Even though Waterworld has a great, if also entirely implausible, premise and a fun story, it's not driven by its script. Written by David Twohy (the genius responsible for sci-fi greats The Arrival and Pitch Black), he shows none of the ear for dialogue he displayed in those aformentioned thrillers. Inconsistency abounds in the atoller's lifestyles, as well as their beliefs. No one (except for the Mariner) is aware that there's ground below the water, but they never seem to question where dirt-which is a rare commodity-comes from. The movie's got all sorts of little problems along those lines, but I don't think they're really worth mentioning.
What makes the movie worth watching is the adventure. The movie's all about the search for Dryland, and the journey for it is an exciting and thrilling one. Spectacular action sequences abound, from large-scale battle sequences to boat chases. In fact, the action is the movie's highlight. Director Kevin Reynolds' has an eye for staging and filming fight scenes and gun battles, delivering all this action with plenty of high-energy flair and virtuoso stunts. The attack on the atoll, an eleven-minute setpiece, was 1995's second most thrilling action sequence (right behind the Battle of Stirling Bridge in Braveheart). Also equally thrilling is the climactic battle aboard the Smokers' tanker, which displays some of the largest pyrotechnics I've ever seen.
To give the adventure an extra boost, the film gives a genuine attempt at character development and actually comes off not half-bad. Kevin Costner's basically aping Mel Gibson with his own rendition of Mad Max, and while playing a part man/part fish is pretty ridiculous, I'd have to say he's quite sincere and convincing in the role. I'm not the world's biggest Costner fan, but I'll be the first in line to say he's sorely underrated as an actor. Tina Majorino is a bit annoying as the cute girl, and I find it rather baffling that her character has Chinese characters tattooed on her back, even though she's clearly caucasian. Dennis Hopper is a hell of a lot of fun as the Deacon, head of the Smokers, playing his role as both villain and comic relief (he even gets in a priceless scene with a fake eye). But faring best of all is the gorgeous Jeanne Tripplehorn as the requisite love interest. I've always been a big fan of hers, and while I wouldn't call this a great performance, she's full of energy and vitality as the tough, strong-willed heroine who doesn't give in to demands so easily.
One of Waterworld's biggest flaws is the generally cheesy acting from the supporting cast. Most everyone in this movie has a different accent (except for the leads, of course, who are distinctly American), which I assume was meant to give the flavoring of variety, but it makes the delivery of the already silly dialogue twice as silly.
That problem aside, I found myself perfectly open to Waterworld's invigorating action and adventure. There was a lengthier version shown on network TV in the film's broadcast premiere, which I thought made improvements on both plot and pacing (the theatrical release runs a fast-paced 136 minutes, and I think the network version is actually almost forty minutes longer). Wish I'd taped it, but hopefully it'll end up as a special edition release on DVD.
Dancing with the waves
kosmasp4 April 2019
Or is it the Tsunami? Well actually the only "Tsunami" would be the one the movie created by not earning enough money. This famously is one of the biggest disasters of a film company. This very short foray into "film history" aside, should it really matter? No, what should matter though is what someone like Joss Whedon said, when he declared this ... well let's just say even he thought that it was nigh impossible to save this from tanking (and there it is the pun everyone here is contractually obligated to use).
This aside, does the movie show the big budget? Of course it does. Should you feel sorry for the movie? Probably not, though that depends on personal feelings and how much you want to swim against ... well come on, how else am I going to write that? All puns aside (even though another one might float up), the movie is not as bad as some have made it.
Now hear me out: I've seen the TV cut, which is around 40 minutes longer than the cut most have seen in cinemas. So I reckon some things are more rounded up. For an even better understanding, it is better to watch the Ulysseus cut though. And mnd you there is a reason they call it that. It is not much longer than the TV cut, though it does contain the cuts to the violence and some nudity. So if you want epic, you will get epic. Try to watch as big as possible.
While I didn't feel this has masterpiece written all over it, I know people who do. So while you may be contemplating that I rated it too high, they might be on my case for not rating it high enough. Whatever point of view you have, I will not let that water down my opinion ...
This aside, does the movie show the big budget? Of course it does. Should you feel sorry for the movie? Probably not, though that depends on personal feelings and how much you want to swim against ... well come on, how else am I going to write that? All puns aside (even though another one might float up), the movie is not as bad as some have made it.
Now hear me out: I've seen the TV cut, which is around 40 minutes longer than the cut most have seen in cinemas. So I reckon some things are more rounded up. For an even better understanding, it is better to watch the Ulysseus cut though. And mnd you there is a reason they call it that. It is not much longer than the TV cut, though it does contain the cuts to the violence and some nudity. So if you want epic, you will get epic. Try to watch as big as possible.
While I didn't feel this has masterpiece written all over it, I know people who do. So while you may be contemplating that I rated it too high, they might be on my case for not rating it high enough. Whatever point of view you have, I will not let that water down my opinion ...
Mad Max of the Water
zwjonas19 November 2021
lots of action, little reality
helpless_dancer25 March 1999
This is an unpopular movie, and I don't see why it is so. Admittedly, it is unbelievable, but so are James Bond films. There was enough action in this one to keep thriller buffs going all the way through. Costner did a good job portraying a lonely vagabond in a crazy, violent world. Dennis Hopper, as usual, was an effective villain; he kept me laughing all the way with his insane antics, and his stupid henchmen. I have to wonder, however, if the full nude shot of the girl was really the actress I had been watching. With clothes on, she didn't look all that well endowed. Not a bad movie, really.
Mediocre treatment of a possibly interesting subject
kay-meier6 June 2005
This movie has been panned in several aspects by many. I first watched it on TV, missing the "big screen" effect of seeing it in a theater. The cinematography was well done, considering all of the problems that are inherent is trying to film a futuristic story among only four sets, that are essentially minimal in design.
As far as my personal objections go, there are only two. The film took far too long to handle a rather simplistic subject -- the search for the "dry land" that so eluded everyone concerned. The other major fault is one of attitude. Costner is good looking and, almost always, is shown as quite handsome in his various roles. But, Costner seems able to play just one role -- Costner. He is a one-dimensional actor who is incapable of carrying any kind of accent for more than a single short sentence. Why doesn't he regularly employ a dialog coach when the role calls for it?
He also never gives up anything about himself or the role particular role he is playing, no hint of "inner being" which could make a connection with the audience. The result, at least in this particular story, is that I had a very hard time generating any sympathy for him at all. I simply couldn't have cared less whether or not he found his dry land at all.
This made for a really boring time, and I had to force myself to stay tuned for the entire excessive length of a story about a character that never got to first base. Too bad, because I think this subject could have been handled much better than it was. Another Costner excessive epic was "The Postman", made a year or so later, which felt much to me like just another telling of the Water World story on a dry land locale. Both were Luke warm at best and way too long in length. Even Dances With Wolves (1991) had the same feel, and was only saved by the performances of the Lakota Sioux warriors and the breathtaking camera shots of the scenery.
I would recommend both movies for watching as rentals, but only if there are no other choices available and you have a lot of time to kill.
As far as my personal objections go, there are only two. The film took far too long to handle a rather simplistic subject -- the search for the "dry land" that so eluded everyone concerned. The other major fault is one of attitude. Costner is good looking and, almost always, is shown as quite handsome in his various roles. But, Costner seems able to play just one role -- Costner. He is a one-dimensional actor who is incapable of carrying any kind of accent for more than a single short sentence. Why doesn't he regularly employ a dialog coach when the role calls for it?
He also never gives up anything about himself or the role particular role he is playing, no hint of "inner being" which could make a connection with the audience. The result, at least in this particular story, is that I had a very hard time generating any sympathy for him at all. I simply couldn't have cared less whether or not he found his dry land at all.
This made for a really boring time, and I had to force myself to stay tuned for the entire excessive length of a story about a character that never got to first base. Too bad, because I think this subject could have been handled much better than it was. Another Costner excessive epic was "The Postman", made a year or so later, which felt much to me like just another telling of the Water World story on a dry land locale. Both were Luke warm at best and way too long in length. Even Dances With Wolves (1991) had the same feel, and was only saved by the performances of the Lakota Sioux warriors and the breathtaking camera shots of the scenery.
I would recommend both movies for watching as rentals, but only if there are no other choices available and you have a lot of time to kill.
This film is essentially Mad Max on water
kevin_robbins23 November 2021
Waterworld (1995) is a movie that I have always adored, is in my DVD collection and is currently available on Netflix. The storyline follows a futuristic society where the world has been completely covered in water and resources are hard to find and very valuable for trade. Everyone is in survival mode and is looking for the legendary land which some people think is a myth and some think is a lie. When a strange mutant arrives at an outpost with worldly things and encounters a child with strange marks on her body...the outpost becomes a launching pad for a battle to find clues to land.
This movie is directed by Kevin Reynolds (Robinhood: Prince of Thieves) and stars Kevin Costner (Dances with Wolves), Dennis Hopper (Easy Rider), Jeanne Tripplehorn (The Firm), Tina Majorino (Napoleon Dynamite), Zakes Mokae (The Serpent and the Rainbow) and Leonardo Cimino (The Monster Squad).
This film is essentially Mad Max on water. I will never know why it initially received bad reviews and didn't do well in theatres. I love this movie. The costumes, circumstances and storyline are perfectly presented and very well executed. The cast is awesome and both Hopper and Costner played their characters to perfection. The special effects are very good as is the ruthlessness of the situations. The ending is also very rewarding and makes the long run time worth it.
Overall I will always feel this is an underrated gem that is very well done and worth your time. This is a science fiction, apocalyptic gem that is a must see. I would score this a 9/10.
This movie is directed by Kevin Reynolds (Robinhood: Prince of Thieves) and stars Kevin Costner (Dances with Wolves), Dennis Hopper (Easy Rider), Jeanne Tripplehorn (The Firm), Tina Majorino (Napoleon Dynamite), Zakes Mokae (The Serpent and the Rainbow) and Leonardo Cimino (The Monster Squad).
This film is essentially Mad Max on water. I will never know why it initially received bad reviews and didn't do well in theatres. I love this movie. The costumes, circumstances and storyline are perfectly presented and very well executed. The cast is awesome and both Hopper and Costner played their characters to perfection. The special effects are very good as is the ruthlessness of the situations. The ending is also very rewarding and makes the long run time worth it.
Overall I will always feel this is an underrated gem that is very well done and worth your time. This is a science fiction, apocalyptic gem that is a must see. I would score this a 9/10.
"Mad Max" on water.
michaelRokeefe10 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Kevin Costner's folly? This movie is hardly as bad as a whole lot of critics think. As for scenery...the water is beautiful. Costner plays Mariner, a mutant man-fish of sorts who helps survivors find the mythical Dryland. The earth has been flooded by the melting polar ice caps. The bad guys in this floating action drama is a band of hooligans called The Smokers , led by the dastardly wicked Deacon(Dennis Hopper). Mariner aids a woman(Jeanne Tripplehorn)and her daughter(Tina Majorino), who happens to have a map to the Dryland tattooed on her back. Not exactly riveting, but episodes of loud action. Some of the violence is pretty harsh and to some may be disturbing. 135 minutes may be too much to endure. Costner may have shot the wad and diminished his star power with this one. Also in the cast: Chaim Girafi, Michael Jeter, Kim Coates, Robert A. Silverman, R.D. Call and Jack Black.
Why?
hitchs5 October 2000
Why, oh why, did they ever waste all that money on this appalling movie? As many people have noticed, Waterworld is a total rip-off of Mad Max II (aka The Road Warrior) - substitute water for desert, jet skis for motor bikes, etc. The ridiculous thing is that this movie was the most expensive ever made and yet was vastly inferior to the original which cost something like $3 million.
Everything that was not copied was stupid. Such as a society which is so short of food-growing land that a tiny pot plant is worth a fortune, and yet no one appears to be going hungry! Or all the trillions of tons of water which have somehow appeared out of nowhere (anyone who thinks there's that much water locked up in the polar ice caps, or that the polar ice could all be melted without MASSIVE worldwide climate changes, needs to think again). And what about a man with implanted gills, so tiny they are virtually invisible, and yet capable of extracting enough oxygen from sea water to support his body indefinitely?
If you're going to spend all that money, why not use some of it to hire script writers (and maybe even an advisor or two) who know what they're talking about?
Everything that was not copied was stupid. Such as a society which is so short of food-growing land that a tiny pot plant is worth a fortune, and yet no one appears to be going hungry! Or all the trillions of tons of water which have somehow appeared out of nowhere (anyone who thinks there's that much water locked up in the polar ice caps, or that the polar ice could all be melted without MASSIVE worldwide climate changes, needs to think again). And what about a man with implanted gills, so tiny they are virtually invisible, and yet capable of extracting enough oxygen from sea water to support his body indefinitely?
If you're going to spend all that money, why not use some of it to hire script writers (and maybe even an advisor or two) who know what they're talking about?
Far From The Awful Movie People Make It Out To Be
slightlymad2226 August 2016
Continuing my plan to watch every Kevin Costner movie in order, I come to Waterworld.
One of the most controversial movies in KC's filmography. Simply because it had the stigma of being the most expensive movie ever produced at the time. A snip by modern standards at $175 million. Universal initially authorized a budget of $100 million, but production costs eventually ran it up to to an estimated $175 million, with KC putting $22 million of his own money into the film, just as he did with Dances With Wolves.
Plot In A Paragraph: In a future where the polar ice-caps have melted and Earth is entirely submerged, The Mariner (KC) reluctantly helps a woman and a young girl try to find dry land.
KC reunites with Fandango and Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves director Kevin Reynolds for what should be a slam dunk for the pair of them, but with troubled production from the off, the film was plagued by a series of cost overruns and production setbacks. The script underwent 36 different drafts which involved six different writers, including Joss Whedon who flew out to Hawaii to work on it, he later described it as "seven weeks of hell". Sets were destroyed (The Atoll actually sank too) by three hurricanes, KC, his stuntman, Jeanne Tripplehorn and Tina Majorino (who was also drunk by jellyfish repeatedly too) all nearly drowned.
All of that,and then throw in leading man KC's whose marriage fell apart during filming, and when Wyatt Earp opened to empty turnstiles to become his second (third if you count The War) box office disappointment in a row, the critics were gunning for him. Writing that after great success, he was finished, and on his way out. They made out, at 40, he was an ageing gunslinger (think KC would approve of the western metaphor) hearing the footsteps of younger faster trigger men named Will Smith, Jim Carrey, Tom Hanks and Leo Dicaprio.
I know i'm in the minority here along with an ever increasing circle of people who actually enjoy this very under rated movie. I don't think it's fan bias, when I say Waterworld is a thoroughly enjoyable summer popcorn flick, all the performances are good, the action set pieces are impressive and it has a good sense of atmosphere too. Whilst I always end up humming James Newton Howard's score for a while after I have watched it too.
It's not perfect by any means. Locking director Reynolds out of the editing room, KC hacked it to pieces in order to accommodate the two-hour-running-time maxim imposed by the studio, so that corporate could get their investment back.
I'm in the process of trying to track down a fan-edit of the film called Waterworld: Ulysses Cut, which includes all of the deleted scenes. The additional scenes tie up several loose ends left ambiguous by the theatrical release.
Even with all of the above, and opening a week before guaranteed money maker Die Hard With A Vengeance, Waterworld ended the year the 12th highest grossing movie of 1995, with a domestic gross of $88 million.
KC bashers should get over themselves, and start giving George Lucas what he deserves.
One of the most controversial movies in KC's filmography. Simply because it had the stigma of being the most expensive movie ever produced at the time. A snip by modern standards at $175 million. Universal initially authorized a budget of $100 million, but production costs eventually ran it up to to an estimated $175 million, with KC putting $22 million of his own money into the film, just as he did with Dances With Wolves.
Plot In A Paragraph: In a future where the polar ice-caps have melted and Earth is entirely submerged, The Mariner (KC) reluctantly helps a woman and a young girl try to find dry land.
KC reunites with Fandango and Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves director Kevin Reynolds for what should be a slam dunk for the pair of them, but with troubled production from the off, the film was plagued by a series of cost overruns and production setbacks. The script underwent 36 different drafts which involved six different writers, including Joss Whedon who flew out to Hawaii to work on it, he later described it as "seven weeks of hell". Sets were destroyed (The Atoll actually sank too) by three hurricanes, KC, his stuntman, Jeanne Tripplehorn and Tina Majorino (who was also drunk by jellyfish repeatedly too) all nearly drowned.
All of that,and then throw in leading man KC's whose marriage fell apart during filming, and when Wyatt Earp opened to empty turnstiles to become his second (third if you count The War) box office disappointment in a row, the critics were gunning for him. Writing that after great success, he was finished, and on his way out. They made out, at 40, he was an ageing gunslinger (think KC would approve of the western metaphor) hearing the footsteps of younger faster trigger men named Will Smith, Jim Carrey, Tom Hanks and Leo Dicaprio.
I know i'm in the minority here along with an ever increasing circle of people who actually enjoy this very under rated movie. I don't think it's fan bias, when I say Waterworld is a thoroughly enjoyable summer popcorn flick, all the performances are good, the action set pieces are impressive and it has a good sense of atmosphere too. Whilst I always end up humming James Newton Howard's score for a while after I have watched it too.
It's not perfect by any means. Locking director Reynolds out of the editing room, KC hacked it to pieces in order to accommodate the two-hour-running-time maxim imposed by the studio, so that corporate could get their investment back.
I'm in the process of trying to track down a fan-edit of the film called Waterworld: Ulysses Cut, which includes all of the deleted scenes. The additional scenes tie up several loose ends left ambiguous by the theatrical release.
Even with all of the above, and opening a week before guaranteed money maker Die Hard With A Vengeance, Waterworld ended the year the 12th highest grossing movie of 1995, with a domestic gross of $88 million.
KC bashers should get over themselves, and start giving George Lucas what he deserves.
Mad Max on the Open Seas
Slarkshark8 March 2023
Instead of a desert apocalypse void of water, how bout a world that is just water. Pretty sure that was the thought process behind 'Waterworld'.
"Perhaps I treated you too harshly" - Thanos.
This quote came to mind and accurately reflected my feelings toward 'Waterworld' after watching the stunts show at Universal Studios Hollywood two weeks ago. What an amazing show! It made me want to watch the movie again, after not watching it for at least 25 years.
For 1995 it's incredibly well made with real, massive set pieces that blows most of what's made today out of the water. If this movie was made today, the whole thing would be made in a water tank with green screens and CGI. So that aspect alone makes it pretty amazing. Albeit, it did cost a bloody fortune, which is well documented.
The dialogue can be considered pretty horrendous. However, if you realize that these are people that have no knowledge of the old world, with zero education, the dialogue actually makes a lot of sense. They are a very simple people.
For a long time and probably still, this movie was deemed as an absolute failure, commercially and financially. But when looking at the numbers, it actually made a profit. And when you consider how successful and popular the show has been at five Universal Studios locations around the world, I would say it's established a positive legacy that few movies have achieved; especially ones that don't have a sequel, or are part of an established franchise.
"Perhaps I treated you too harshly" - Thanos.
This quote came to mind and accurately reflected my feelings toward 'Waterworld' after watching the stunts show at Universal Studios Hollywood two weeks ago. What an amazing show! It made me want to watch the movie again, after not watching it for at least 25 years.
For 1995 it's incredibly well made with real, massive set pieces that blows most of what's made today out of the water. If this movie was made today, the whole thing would be made in a water tank with green screens and CGI. So that aspect alone makes it pretty amazing. Albeit, it did cost a bloody fortune, which is well documented.
The dialogue can be considered pretty horrendous. However, if you realize that these are people that have no knowledge of the old world, with zero education, the dialogue actually makes a lot of sense. They are a very simple people.
For a long time and probably still, this movie was deemed as an absolute failure, commercially and financially. But when looking at the numbers, it actually made a profit. And when you consider how successful and popular the show has been at five Universal Studios locations around the world, I would say it's established a positive legacy that few movies have achieved; especially ones that don't have a sequel, or are part of an established franchise.
Execrable!
joedever30 September 2006
Quite simply the worst film I have ever seen... and I've seen a few stinkers in my time. More plot holes than a Swiss cheese. Patronising throughout, cliché-ridden, grossly insulting to the intelligence. This Costner ego-trip deservedly sank without trace to become the most disastrous financial failure in the history of movies to date. Confirmed my suspicions at the time that Costner was a vastly over-rated actor with an ego the size of Colorado. If you've never seen this turkey, do yourself a big favour and continue in your blessed state of being. Makes my skin crawl and my throat dry just thinking about how truly awful it is. Only wish I could have given it a -10 rating.
Not a Masterpiece but It's Underrated
Michael_Elliott22 November 2012
Waterworld (1995)
*** (out of 4)
Talk all you want about how this thing was a bomb at the box office. I've personally never seen how good or poorly a movie does at the box office should have any impact on its entertainment or quality level. Is WATERWORLD flawless? Not even close. There are countless problems with this film but for the most part I've always enjoyed its ambition and it keeps me entertained. The story is pretty simple as in the future all the world is covered by water, although there's rumors of land somewhere. A part-man, part-fish (Kevin Costner) gets involved with a family (Jeanne Tripplehorn, Tina Majorino) and soon must defeat some bad guys (led by Dennis Hopper) who has kidnapped the girl. WATERWORLD runs on a bit too long, loses focus on any type of story and yes the budget was crazy but in the end it's still a pretty entertaining summer blockbuster. I think a lot of credit has to go to the actual look of the film, which of course turned out to be some of the biggest issues with the production. I thought the director managed to do a good job creating a world where the viewer really did feel was nothing but water. The futuristic atmosphere also worked and the look of the costumes, ships and supplies were all realistic and fun. The action scenes were also extremely well handled and especially the ending with all the explosions and fires. The battles at sea were really just things we had previously seen in pirate movies but they were still fun. Costner also turns in a good, not great, performance in the lead and he at least keeps you interested in everything going on. Hopper delivers that crazy type of performance we all love and Tripplehorn is good in her supporting bit. Majorino is also fun as the young girl who befriends Costner. I remember watching this when it was originally released and everyone was going crazy about the budget. Everyone seemed to forget that the people leaving the theater actually liked the movie. It's too bad WATERWORLD was doomed from the start but it remains a fun movie.
*** (out of 4)
Talk all you want about how this thing was a bomb at the box office. I've personally never seen how good or poorly a movie does at the box office should have any impact on its entertainment or quality level. Is WATERWORLD flawless? Not even close. There are countless problems with this film but for the most part I've always enjoyed its ambition and it keeps me entertained. The story is pretty simple as in the future all the world is covered by water, although there's rumors of land somewhere. A part-man, part-fish (Kevin Costner) gets involved with a family (Jeanne Tripplehorn, Tina Majorino) and soon must defeat some bad guys (led by Dennis Hopper) who has kidnapped the girl. WATERWORLD runs on a bit too long, loses focus on any type of story and yes the budget was crazy but in the end it's still a pretty entertaining summer blockbuster. I think a lot of credit has to go to the actual look of the film, which of course turned out to be some of the biggest issues with the production. I thought the director managed to do a good job creating a world where the viewer really did feel was nothing but water. The futuristic atmosphere also worked and the look of the costumes, ships and supplies were all realistic and fun. The action scenes were also extremely well handled and especially the ending with all the explosions and fires. The battles at sea were really just things we had previously seen in pirate movies but they were still fun. Costner also turns in a good, not great, performance in the lead and he at least keeps you interested in everything going on. Hopper delivers that crazy type of performance we all love and Tripplehorn is good in her supporting bit. Majorino is also fun as the young girl who befriends Costner. I remember watching this when it was originally released and everyone was going crazy about the budget. Everyone seemed to forget that the people leaving the theater actually liked the movie. It's too bad WATERWORLD was doomed from the start but it remains a fun movie.
Awesomeworld!
unclezoltan13 September 2017
If you're looking for something to satisfy that Mad Max tooth, this will definitely be the film you're looking for. Although it hasn't aged well making it not as graphically pristine as up to date cgi, the film carries loads of practical effects proving it's intricate worth. Sometimes it feels a bit empty but what can we expect from a world that has been covered up by water leaving sparseness. Everything is brilliant in this film from set design to the acting. The makeup is a little shoddy and the sound is very average with a backup for an ordinary adventure soundtrack but overall it is worth the watch!
Silly but fun.
BA_Harrison4 April 2017
In a future where the polar ice caps have melted, flooding the Earth, the mariner (Kevin Costner)—part man, part fish—reluctantly befriends a beautiful woman, Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn), and a young girl, Enola (Tina Majorino), whose mysterious back tattoo holds the secret to the whereabouts of dry land. Meanwhile, a band of vicious pirates, led by the wicked Deacon (Dennis Hopper), try to find Enola in order to claim dry land for themselves.
One of the biggest box office failures of the '90s, Waterworld is, in many ways, more than worthy of the derision thrown its way: it's overlong; the plot is beyond ludicrous, raising numerous questions that are never answered; Dennis Hopper's villain is way too cartoonish; and the set pieces are stunt-packed and explosive but lack genuine excitement. What the film does have, however, is a great sense of fun, wonderful production design and excellent cinematography, all of which go to make this a lot more enjoyable than its reputation suggests.
$175 million well spent? Of course not, but this 'Mad Max on water' adventure is worth catching, if only just the once.
One of the biggest box office failures of the '90s, Waterworld is, in many ways, more than worthy of the derision thrown its way: it's overlong; the plot is beyond ludicrous, raising numerous questions that are never answered; Dennis Hopper's villain is way too cartoonish; and the set pieces are stunt-packed and explosive but lack genuine excitement. What the film does have, however, is a great sense of fun, wonderful production design and excellent cinematography, all of which go to make this a lot more enjoyable than its reputation suggests.
$175 million well spent? Of course not, but this 'Mad Max on water' adventure is worth catching, if only just the once.
The $200 Million Dollar Roger Corman Film
MadReviewer30 August 2001
I'll admit it: I liked "Waterworld" . . . or parts of it, anyway. No, "Waterworld" is not exactly Shakespeare -- for that matter, it's not exactly James Cameron, either -- but it hits a certain "Mad Max/Road Warrior" vibe that's moderately cool, and it provides a handful of decent thrills. Should two hundred million dollars been spent on this flick? Probably not, but I'll ask you this: Does it matter? If you only have to plunk down three bucks to rent a movie, does it really matter what that movie's budget was, provided that you were at least slightly entertained?
"Waterworld" is the story of the Mariner (Kevin Costner); a tough, grizzled loner who roams the seas of post-apocalyptic Earth. The polar icecaps have melted, flooding the world, and land has become little more than a legend. During his travels between the tiny man-made islands that comprise the remnants of civilization, the Mariner meets a woman named Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and a small girl named Enola (Tina Majorino) who claim to have knowledge -- or at least a cryptic map -- of where to find land. Of course, a rowdy gang of pirates known as the Smokers also are aware of the fact that Helen and Enola have this knowledge; so, under the guidance of their mad leader Deacon (Dennis Hopper), the pirates try to hunt down the two. Faced with his one slim chance of ever finding land falling into the hands of complete madmen, it's up to the Mariner to protect Helen and Enola -- and ultimately, to try and defeat the Smokers -- if he wants to keep his dreams and himself alive . . . .
The premise of "Waterworld" is interesting enough; I like the fact that the film actually tries to show (at least in the opening scenes) how people would survive in a world flooded by salt water. There's some cool flashes of originality in here regarding what the world would be like -- for example, the fact that ordinary dirt has become so valuable as to become the standard of currency -- but unfortunately, that originality gets ignored the second the action starts rolling halfway through the film. Overall, the script isn't terrible -- however, it's quite predictable. For example, the first part of the film is spent explaining painfully how there is no more land, and how it's just a myth . . . gee, wonder what our heroes will find towards the end of the film? A couple of twists spring readily to mind (for example -- there genuinely is no more land, or dry land can be found far beneath the sea in domed cities, like some kind of "Atlantis", perhaps) -- one such twist would've been nice to see. While the story does have its good moments (particularly any scene involving Dennis Hopper), it's too formulaic to be called exciting. Nice? Yes. Exciting? No. The few good scenes are very, very good, but there's a lot more average -- or even dull -- scenes spread out between the sparse fun.
The most puzzling part about "Waterworld", though, is the direction. The film is loaded with action, and I'll give credit where credit is due -- nearly all of the action looks great, especially since all the fights and the action take place out on the water. But for $200 million . . ? It doesn't look THAT good. I know a significant part of the film's budget was spent on floating sets out in the Pacific -- but the camera cuts and shot selections are usually so quick and tight, it's hard to notice the background. There's no long, slow shots basking on the glory of these expensive sets. "Waterworld" is filmed exactly like a typical action movie, which is okay, I guess, but it completely fails to take advantage of its resources. Quite strange, to say the least.
As for the cast . . . it's a mixed bag. Kevin Costner does a very good job as the grizzled Mariner, playing against type as a hardened, almost amoral anti-hero. It goes against the good-guy grain that Costner has typically played in most of his films, and Costner seems to relish the change. Dennis Hopper is terrific as the villainous Deacon; the role is completely over-the-top and absolutely ludicrous at times . . . in short, the part is perfect for Hopper. His lines simply drip with withering sarcasm, making him a quite memorable screen villain. The rest of the cast . . . ehh. Nobody does a horrible job, but nobody's particularly memorable, either.
Should "Waterworld" have been a $200 Million Dollar Dud? Probably not. In a perfect world, "Waterworld" would've been a $20 Million Dollar Sleeper, directed by John Carpenter and starring Rutger Hauer . . . or a $2 Million Dollar Cult Classic, directed by Roger Corman and starring Lorenzo Lamas. However, this isn't a perfect world (as evidenced by the fact that Freddie Prinze, Jr. keeps making movies), so "Waterworld" is forever branded as the bad film with a runaway budget. Too bad. "Waterworld" is by no means a great movie, but it has some entertaining moments, enough to warrant at least a rental . . . and some frequent pushes of the fast forward button. Grade: B-/C+
"Waterworld" is the story of the Mariner (Kevin Costner); a tough, grizzled loner who roams the seas of post-apocalyptic Earth. The polar icecaps have melted, flooding the world, and land has become little more than a legend. During his travels between the tiny man-made islands that comprise the remnants of civilization, the Mariner meets a woman named Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and a small girl named Enola (Tina Majorino) who claim to have knowledge -- or at least a cryptic map -- of where to find land. Of course, a rowdy gang of pirates known as the Smokers also are aware of the fact that Helen and Enola have this knowledge; so, under the guidance of their mad leader Deacon (Dennis Hopper), the pirates try to hunt down the two. Faced with his one slim chance of ever finding land falling into the hands of complete madmen, it's up to the Mariner to protect Helen and Enola -- and ultimately, to try and defeat the Smokers -- if he wants to keep his dreams and himself alive . . . .
The premise of "Waterworld" is interesting enough; I like the fact that the film actually tries to show (at least in the opening scenes) how people would survive in a world flooded by salt water. There's some cool flashes of originality in here regarding what the world would be like -- for example, the fact that ordinary dirt has become so valuable as to become the standard of currency -- but unfortunately, that originality gets ignored the second the action starts rolling halfway through the film. Overall, the script isn't terrible -- however, it's quite predictable. For example, the first part of the film is spent explaining painfully how there is no more land, and how it's just a myth . . . gee, wonder what our heroes will find towards the end of the film? A couple of twists spring readily to mind (for example -- there genuinely is no more land, or dry land can be found far beneath the sea in domed cities, like some kind of "Atlantis", perhaps) -- one such twist would've been nice to see. While the story does have its good moments (particularly any scene involving Dennis Hopper), it's too formulaic to be called exciting. Nice? Yes. Exciting? No. The few good scenes are very, very good, but there's a lot more average -- or even dull -- scenes spread out between the sparse fun.
The most puzzling part about "Waterworld", though, is the direction. The film is loaded with action, and I'll give credit where credit is due -- nearly all of the action looks great, especially since all the fights and the action take place out on the water. But for $200 million . . ? It doesn't look THAT good. I know a significant part of the film's budget was spent on floating sets out in the Pacific -- but the camera cuts and shot selections are usually so quick and tight, it's hard to notice the background. There's no long, slow shots basking on the glory of these expensive sets. "Waterworld" is filmed exactly like a typical action movie, which is okay, I guess, but it completely fails to take advantage of its resources. Quite strange, to say the least.
As for the cast . . . it's a mixed bag. Kevin Costner does a very good job as the grizzled Mariner, playing against type as a hardened, almost amoral anti-hero. It goes against the good-guy grain that Costner has typically played in most of his films, and Costner seems to relish the change. Dennis Hopper is terrific as the villainous Deacon; the role is completely over-the-top and absolutely ludicrous at times . . . in short, the part is perfect for Hopper. His lines simply drip with withering sarcasm, making him a quite memorable screen villain. The rest of the cast . . . ehh. Nobody does a horrible job, but nobody's particularly memorable, either.
Should "Waterworld" have been a $200 Million Dollar Dud? Probably not. In a perfect world, "Waterworld" would've been a $20 Million Dollar Sleeper, directed by John Carpenter and starring Rutger Hauer . . . or a $2 Million Dollar Cult Classic, directed by Roger Corman and starring Lorenzo Lamas. However, this isn't a perfect world (as evidenced by the fact that Freddie Prinze, Jr. keeps making movies), so "Waterworld" is forever branded as the bad film with a runaway budget. Too bad. "Waterworld" is by no means a great movie, but it has some entertaining moments, enough to warrant at least a rental . . . and some frequent pushes of the fast forward button. Grade: B-/C+
Some interesting pictures & ideas, crappy script & action.
georgesirbu10 February 2002
Some interesting pictures (the underwater tour scene is quite interesting, though it could've been made better) and intriguing ideas (Costner's boat) but a very, very, very crappy script & an equally crappy and hard-to-buy action scenes.
Not nearly as bad as everyone says...
Chromium_51 February 2005
"Waterworld" is one of those movies that everyone would rather passively make fun of rather than take the time to watch. This is unfortunate, because it really is a good movie. Sure, it's borrowing a lot from "Mad Max," but it's not like "Mad Max" was original fare to begin with. It's an interesting take on the genre, with some nice sets and costumes, a great soundtrack, and the coolest boat to ever appear on a movie screen. The script has thoughtfully and intricately worked out a new way of life in a post-apocalyptic world, and the supposed "plot holes" aren't as big as everyone makes them out to be (OK, we never really find out why dirt is so important in the future; so what? Is that enough to ruin the whole movie?).
If anything brings it down, it's Kevin Costner's performance. The brooding, gloomy hero shtick works, but he's still far too serious for a movie like this. If he'd had the good sense to be a little more tongue-in-cheek, it would have helped a LOT. Still, it's not a bad movie by any means, and I really think all the negativity toward it is unnecessary. Enough with all the complaining... just sit back and enjoy it!
8/10 stars.
If anything brings it down, it's Kevin Costner's performance. The brooding, gloomy hero shtick works, but he's still far too serious for a movie like this. If he'd had the good sense to be a little more tongue-in-cheek, it would have helped a LOT. Still, it's not a bad movie by any means, and I really think all the negativity toward it is unnecessary. Enough with all the complaining... just sit back and enjoy it!
8/10 stars.
" They've taken the land and covered it with water "
thinker16914 October 2007
Reaching a few thousand years into the future for a story, two writers (Peter Rader and David Ywphy) penned the world according to Aquaman. Their work becomes the basis for "Water World." In this futuristic setting, the Earth is complete inundated leaving only a few dots of dry land. Here on this watery planet, a hybrid human (Kevin Costner) eeks out a marginal living, trading rare dry soil for passing necessities. Skimming the oceans from one part of the world to the other, he finds little company until he meets up with a group of wondering but murdering sea gypsies called "Smokers." Led by their psychotic leader, whom they refer to as 'the Decon' (Dennis Hopper) they will attack and destroy anyone to steal and take what they need. Their secret goal is to find a 'legenday' map of the world which will lead them to a utopia of dry land. The map is tattooed on the back of a little girl who becomes a pawn for the bickering parties involved. Lots of excitement, aerial action, explosive violence and spectacular stunts highlight this awesome watery film. Kevin Coatner fans will really enjoy this exception story. ****
One of the worst movies ever, yeah!
UberCamper4 August 2001
Bad movies amaze me. Nothing can be more fun in the Saturday evening than settling in my favorite chair with a couple of beers and a remote, then finding a really bad movie and enjoying it to the full extent of its stupidity. I love finding plot holes in lame scripts, predicting cliched lines of cartoonish characters, and making fun of lousy acting. To me, Waterworld was just what I needed. I laughed and I cried for 2 1/2 hours. After the final credits rolled I booted up my laptop and logged on to IMDB with the intention of writing a praise to this masterpiece of bad-movie-making. I thought the fun was over. Wrong. In the user reviews I read this, and I quote:
"Star Wars makes me laugh,Terminator-2 makes me cry,WATERWORLD makes me THINK."
After reading this, I literally fell off my chair. Now, the Usenet acronym "ROTFL" has a whole new meaning to me. Damn Ukrainians and their twisted sense of humor.
Rating: 1/10, yeah!
"Star Wars makes me laugh,Terminator-2 makes me cry,WATERWORLD makes me THINK."
After reading this, I literally fell off my chair. Now, the Usenet acronym "ROTFL" has a whole new meaning to me. Damn Ukrainians and their twisted sense of humor.
Rating: 1/10, yeah!
Why do people hate this film?
CuriosityKilledShawn6 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I honestly don't understand what all the fuss is about. Why do people hate Waterworld? Why was it instantly disregarded before it was even released? When you really think about it, how much different IS Waterworld from the more recent Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest? They are quite similar if you think about it. Waterworld also cost $75 million less than DMC. But because it has Johnny Depp in mascara the whole world loves it! Hypocrisy! With a lot of behind the scenes trouble (Reynolds walked off the film and Costner had to finish the final third of filming himself) and negative pre-release buzz, everyone expected Waterworld to fail. Boasting a budget of £175 million (the most expensive ever until Titanic 2 years later) it was sure to be a flop, especially with the snooty public and critics blasting it before its release. Then, the unthinkable happened.
Upon release, Waterworld actually managed to prove critic expectation wrong and be a good movie, receiving good (albeit ignored) reviews and finally earning a grand total of $255 million at the Box Office. This is before video, laserdisc, TV, DVD, HD-DVD and Blu Ray sales as well as all of the merchandise. Does sound like a flop to you? The plot is far-fetched. Yes, but so are the POTC plots involving fish-men, giant squids and Orlando Bloom as anything remotely masculine. But you accepted that quite easily. So just, for a minute, believe that if the polar ice caps DID melt that the world WOULD be covered in water. Set hundreds of years after this particular cataclysm, Waterworld follows the journey of The Mariner (Kevin Costner, who is only referred to a few times but never actually named), a man who is one step beyond human as he has the ability to breathe underwater and has webbed feet.
Early on in the movie, The Mariner comes across an Atoll, a floating small town complete with its own hill...er Waterbillies. When the Atoll is seized by crazed madman baddie boss Dennis Hopper as The Duke of the Deez (as in Exxon Valdeez), The Mariner escapes with Enola, a little girl who may hold the secret of Dryland and her guardian Helen (the totally gorgeous Jeanne Tripplehorn). Not happy with anyone leaving the party The Duke sends his army of filthy smokers to catch The Mariner and discover Dryland for himself.
Waterworld has a lot going for it. It's everything an action/sci-fi movie should be. There is so much escapism in the stunning seascapes and tropical feel. James Newton Howard's exotic score (replacing a rejected score by Mark Isham) is breathtaking and I seriously recommend you hunt down the soundtrack CD. The action is almost entirely special effects and stunt-work and it's brilliantly done. The editing is also quite impressive as is the amazing sound design. Waterworld is far superior to many, more expensive action films but still carries this burden of negative, unfair public opinion.
I have only ever seen the 136-minute cut of Waterworld that was released into cinemas and subsequent VHS etc. But a Director's Cut of 176 minutes has been shown on TV in America several times. This version apparently restores several scenes that tie up loose ends and answers a lot of questions about how the this particular watery future works as well as revealing that Dryland is actually Mount Everest. Other than TV airings, this version has never made available to the public. Which is quite annoying as there is a huge fanbase for it.
Don't have prejudices against this movie. Think different and see for yourself how cool it is.
Upon release, Waterworld actually managed to prove critic expectation wrong and be a good movie, receiving good (albeit ignored) reviews and finally earning a grand total of $255 million at the Box Office. This is before video, laserdisc, TV, DVD, HD-DVD and Blu Ray sales as well as all of the merchandise. Does sound like a flop to you? The plot is far-fetched. Yes, but so are the POTC plots involving fish-men, giant squids and Orlando Bloom as anything remotely masculine. But you accepted that quite easily. So just, for a minute, believe that if the polar ice caps DID melt that the world WOULD be covered in water. Set hundreds of years after this particular cataclysm, Waterworld follows the journey of The Mariner (Kevin Costner, who is only referred to a few times but never actually named), a man who is one step beyond human as he has the ability to breathe underwater and has webbed feet.
Early on in the movie, The Mariner comes across an Atoll, a floating small town complete with its own hill...er Waterbillies. When the Atoll is seized by crazed madman baddie boss Dennis Hopper as The Duke of the Deez (as in Exxon Valdeez), The Mariner escapes with Enola, a little girl who may hold the secret of Dryland and her guardian Helen (the totally gorgeous Jeanne Tripplehorn). Not happy with anyone leaving the party The Duke sends his army of filthy smokers to catch The Mariner and discover Dryland for himself.
Waterworld has a lot going for it. It's everything an action/sci-fi movie should be. There is so much escapism in the stunning seascapes and tropical feel. James Newton Howard's exotic score (replacing a rejected score by Mark Isham) is breathtaking and I seriously recommend you hunt down the soundtrack CD. The action is almost entirely special effects and stunt-work and it's brilliantly done. The editing is also quite impressive as is the amazing sound design. Waterworld is far superior to many, more expensive action films but still carries this burden of negative, unfair public opinion.
I have only ever seen the 136-minute cut of Waterworld that was released into cinemas and subsequent VHS etc. But a Director's Cut of 176 minutes has been shown on TV in America several times. This version apparently restores several scenes that tie up loose ends and answers a lot of questions about how the this particular watery future works as well as revealing that Dryland is actually Mount Everest. Other than TV airings, this version has never made available to the public. Which is quite annoying as there is a huge fanbase for it.
Don't have prejudices against this movie. Think different and see for yourself how cool it is.
Not the Monumental Flop I Heard it was
view_and_review30 August 2020
horrible, awful, dreadful movie. A must-see.
mp3dude430 June 2003
This movie is so bad you expect to see Kevin Costner in it. Huge budget exceeded by Kevin Costner's ego. Memorable scenes include:
Add to that bad acting, bad directing, bad editing and you have one of the worst films ever. Almost makes you want to see Robin Hood or Dances With Cows.
- Gas-powered jet skis waiting underwater for our hero. Hello! Internal combustion engines need air!
- An oil tanker propelled by a bunch of people with oars. Scotty, give us warp 10!
- Said oil tanker blown up using a conveniently placed and open vent.
Add to that bad acting, bad directing, bad editing and you have one of the worst films ever. Almost makes you want to see Robin Hood or Dances With Cows.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
