Waterworld

Name: Waterworld
Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Thriller
Released: July 28, 1995
Duration: 135 min
Rating: 56
Cast: Jeanne Tripplehorn, Kevin Costner

1995

METASCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 17 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 210 Ratings

See All

4.2

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4.2	Your Score
4.2	User Score Mixed or average reviews based on 210 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Waterworld

Now Playing: Waterworld

Movie Details & Credits

Universal Pictures | Release Date: July 28, 1995 | PG-13

Starring: Jeanne Tripplehorn, Kevin Costner

Summary: In the future, the polar ice caps have melted, covering the Earth with water. The Mariner (Costner), a mysterious drifter, attempts to elude the savage "Smokers" and escort Helen (Tripplehorn) and her daughter Enola (Majorino) to the legendary Dryland.

Director: Kevin Costner and Kevin Reynolds

Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Thriller

Rating: PG-13

Runtime: 135 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

David Ansen

A pretty damn good summer movie. Read full review

Mike Clark

A two hour aquatic pursuit pic with bruising stunts, fun-to-watch performances, a dozen good chortles and imposing Panavision renderings of post-apocalyptic crud, Waterworld clearly has the makings of a cult movie. Read full review

Michael Wilmington

Waterworld is often entertaining because it's screwy. Could even Ed Wood Jr. have come up with those cigarette-puffing villains, in a world with hardly enough dirt for a tobacco plant? [28 July 1995]

Rita Kempley

Waterworld isn't "Fishtar," but Kevin Costner's pricey, post-apocalyptic sloshbuckler isn't a seafaring classic either. Read full review

TV Guide Magazine Staff (Not Credited)

Its mediocrity guarantees this lavish, soggy retread of futuristic Australian action classic "The Road Warrior" a place in the ranks of forgotten extravaganzas. Read full review

Mick LaSalle

It's really not bad... It's a genuine vault at greatness that misses the mark -- but survives. Read full review

Jonathan Rosenbaum

This movie feels like it was made by a bank rather than a person. Read full review

SEE ALL 17 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

ralphpugsley

Oct 4, 2019

Waterworld is a very underrated film in many respects, especially the extended cut, which really uses the added runtime to the benefit of the characters and world-building.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

Crazedbuffoon

Oct 23, 2021

I love this movie, with a passion. The story and characters are awesome, and the set pieces and large-scale action scenes are top notch. I still don't understand the hate for this movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

CalibMcBolts

May 30, 2016

Waterworld is a decent futuristic action picture with some great sets, some intriguing ideas, and a few images that will stay with me. The script doesn't do a great job with either the spiritual or the physical trek, but the spectacular action sequences occur with enough regularity thatWaterworld is a decent futuristic action picture with some great sets, some intriguing ideas, and a few images that will stay with me. The script doesn't do a great job with either the spiritual or the physical trek, but the spectacular action sequences occur with enough regularity that strong writing isn't necessary to keep Waterworld afloat.
Waterworld really doesnt deserve all the hate it's getting, it's by no means a great movie because of the over exposition script, some ridiculous scenes, and illogical things happening, but aside from that it is very entertaining with some intriguing ideas, awesome set (pieces), and a ver solid post-apocalyptic movie.
The movie cost a whopping 200 million, which is a massive amount by today's standard and let alone 1995''s standards. 200 million went down the drain, but not completely, as this film isn't a total disaster. However, it sure doesn't satisfy like 200 million dollar entertainment. Production design is top notch, and combined with some good special FX and sets, the money is definetaly on the screen. However, the story's off, and that's probably why the film didn't gross. After a promising battle in the beginning, albeit a little silly, once they're adrift on the mariner's ship, the film drags. The characters don't have any depth, they just do what they do. The smokers, you don't even know why they do what they do. Outside of finding dryland, there's little focus in the plot, and ultimately the parts don't quite add up to something a 200 million dollar budget should deliver.
The only real problem this movie suffers from is that it lacks balance. It tries to be a serious movie about the hardships of life on this aquatic world only to shift gears and become a childish action flick when the bad guys get their screen time. But, there's so much to like here. The movie looks and sounds great with good attention to details and the sets, especially the atoll, are stunning. The story is interesting enough and at times the movie is emotional and funny, so it engages the viewer. I have watched the film a couple of times and I was never bored.

Give Waterworld a second chance people, it really isnt that bad...

EDIT: Waterworld also spawned probably the coolest live show in the world, at Universal Studio's in L.A, the Waterworld show is incredible!… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

[Anonymous]

Oct 29, 2005

200 million went down the drain, but not completely, as this film isn't a total disaster. However, it sure doesn't satisfy like 200 million dollar entertainment. Production design is top notch, and combined with some good special FX and sets, the money is definetaly on the screen. 200 million went down the drain, but not completely, as this film isn't a total disaster. However, it sure doesn't satisfy like 200 million dollar entertainment. Production design is top notch, and combined with some good special FX and sets, the money is definetaly on the screen. However, the story's off, and that's probably why the film didn't gross. After a promising battle in the beginning, albeit a little silly, once they're adrift on the mariner's ship, the film drags, and they accomplish little, whinig about who owns what. The characters don't have any depth, they just do what they do. The smokers, you don't even know why they do what they do. Outside of finding dryland, there's little focus in the plot, and ultimately the parts don't quite add up to something a 200 million dollar budget should deliver. Decent entertainment, but people would likely flock to more satisfying movies in the genre.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

Bikerjames

Jul 30, 2019

Kind of a Mad Max meets Clint Eastwood flick. The movie got trashed by the critics when it was first released. It cost a fortune to make the film and you can see why when you watch it with the elaborate sets and special effects, both of which are stellar. 20+ years later the movie getsKind of a Mad Max meets Clint Eastwood flick. The movie got trashed by the critics when it was first released. It cost a fortune to make the film and you can see why when you watch it with the elaborate sets and special effects, both of which are stellar. 20+ years later the movie gets more generous reviews. Lots of action sequences. There are illogical moments, like where do the smokers get their endless supply of tobacco in a world with no land, and the endless supply of ammunition and fuel as well, but it's better to just sit back and enjoy all the action. I watched the movie in 4k and it looks amazing, one of the better 4k movies I've watched, and the soundtrack is equally great - your subwoofers will be put to the test.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

Kai82

Dec 4, 2020

This movie is famous for being awful, a finical disaster and harming the career of Kevin Costner. A short description would be “Mad Max” on water instead of dessert wastelands. I think while this movie has its problems it is better than its reputation. It was an ambitious project and theyThis movie is famous for being awful, a finical disaster and harming the career of Kevin Costner. A short description would be “Mad Max” on water instead of dessert wastelands. I think while this movie has its problems it is better than its reputation. It was an ambitious project and they made some mistakes on top of some production hell. Lets start with the setting and story. It is set in a future where Earth is completely flooded. The surviving humans have adapted to a lifestyle on the ocean. There are all kinds of groups like merchants, travelers or raiders. The Mariner played by Kevin Costner has an advantage as he has gills and has completely adapted to the aquarian lifestyle. He is drawn into an adventure against his will when he meets Helena and the girl Enola who seems to have a concretion to a legend of dry land (A myth, fairy-tale or better said urban legend of their time). Because of this the girl is also hunted by the smokers who are the raiders / pirates of the sees. For itself I think the story has potential but there are some poor twists or ideas that do not work (I will give some examples later with a spoiler warning). The characters are fine for me. I think Kevin Costner does a good performance and is not to blame for the failings. He is the typical reluctant hero hardened by life but underneath a great heroic man. Dennis Hopper is Deacon the leader of the smokers. He is an enjoyable evil villain. For the others I will also praise Jeanne Tripplehorn as Helen and Tina Majorino as Enola. There are no great missteps here. The sets look amazing. They made the decision to shoot the scenes on water. This gave a really good look but made so many problems. It was hard and made the cost of the movie explode. There are also many rumors about quarrels during production. I think the problems harmed the movie. While it is not awful there are some things that destroy the immersion. There is the for me proven theory that as long you are entertained enough by a movie you can get away with some strange decisions. There are a few unbelievable things in this movie. Slight spoiler warning as I give you 2 examples from the movie: You have a car chase sequence in this movie and Enola cant swim. Yes you read this correct. Both ideas are beyond stupidity in this setting. End of spoilers. There are some other smaller problems in the story. Also nothing is that original or great to improve this movie. You get the feeling that you have seen it all better elsewhere. This might sound too negative as I must repeat it is neither that bad or a disaster. Overall I enjoyed this movie and repeat that it is better than its reputation. I admit that it has some problems that other might dislike more than I do. Worth watching but earned its place in movie history ecause of the wrong reasons.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

MichaelBagamery

Jan 29, 2015

It is so dull and ugly for its deep-into-nine-figures budget, I can't believe Kevin Costner, or anyone, would want to be associated with this. The story rests on the gaping plot hole of a man with gills, who could conceivably live solely underwater and eat, say, fish and seaweed would tradeIt is so dull and ugly for its deep-into-nine-figures budget, I can't believe Kevin Costner, or anyone, would want to be associated with this. The story rests on the gaping plot hole of a man with gills, who could conceivably live solely underwater and eat, say, fish and seaweed would trade with normal humans, who want to kill him the moment they discover he is not one of them.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

SEE ALL 21 REVIEWS

70	#70 Best Movie of 1995
29	#29 Most Discussed Movie of 1995
20	#20 Most Shared Movie of 1995