Read User Reviews and Submit your own for Waterworld

7

[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 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

7

Voodoo123Jul 17, 2019

+Excellent visual style
+Fantastic soundtrack
+Interesting concept -Screenplay feels flat at times -Some pacing issues If you are a fan of Mad Max or anything of the 'post apocalyptic survival' genre then this is a must watch. Despite being+Excellent visual style
+Fantastic soundtrack
+Interesting concept
-Screenplay feels flat at times
-Some pacing issues

If you are a fan of Mad Max or anything of the 'post apocalyptic survival' genre then this is a must watch. Despite being an excellent highly watchable action flick it misses that 'x' factor to really elevate the material to the next level of awesome currently occupied by Fury Road.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

JamesIrish68Jun 7, 2020

The biggest mistake was Dennis Hopper and his pseudo-Mad Max gang. If they had gone the serious pathway with the bad guys rather than the dumb humour this movie would be a classic. As it is, it's still enjoyable and holds up well. The scenesThe biggest mistake was Dennis Hopper and his pseudo-Mad Max gang. If they had gone the serious pathway with the bad guys rather than the dumb humour this movie would be a classic. As it is, it's still enjoyable and holds up well. The scenes with the Irish pirate are brilliant and deserving of high marks on their own.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

Toasty87Jul 18, 2020

For the story and plot this film just drags with a not needed long run time.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

8

CalibMcBoltsMay 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 spectacularWaterworld 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

All this user's reviews

5

j30Feb 13, 2012

Before Titanic came out, Waterworld was the most expensive film ever produced. Comparing the two is like night and day. Even though I don't particularly care for Titanic I think if once you have a commander of the screen and someone with aBefore Titanic came out, Waterworld was the most expensive film ever produced. Comparing the two is like night and day. Even though I don't particularly care for Titanic I think if once you have a commander of the screen and someone with a vision like James Cameron you're going to have substantial differences in results. Titanic full of ambition (like Waterworld), took home 11 Oscars while Waterworld was just nominated for 1 Oscar (Best Sound).… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

5

Klaww25Dec 4, 2013

This movie felt like playing uncharted 3 there are so many plot holes that make this movie very good. Lousy acting a poor story so many thing. I think it is a good rental and a good watch. This makes you feel like playing uncharted 3 over andThis movie felt like playing uncharted 3 there are so many plot holes that make this movie very good. Lousy acting a poor story so many thing. I think it is a good rental and a good watch. This makes you feel like playing uncharted 3 over and over again.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

8

IntonarumoriMay 24, 2014

I don't really understand the lack of success this movie had. 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 andI don't really understand the lack of success this movie had. 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.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

7

BikerjamesJul 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 ofKind 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

All this user's reviews

6

Kai82Dec 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 itsThis 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

All this user's reviews

7

glommanAug 26, 2020

Waterworld could've been a great and iconic movie, if the plot hook around the girl with the tattoo on her back would've been more sophisticated, in my opinion. Also there's the fact that this movie, especially its villain(s) feel soWaterworld could've been a great and iconic movie, if the plot hook around the girl with the tattoo on her back would've been more sophisticated, in my opinion. Also there's the fact that this movie, especially its villain(s) feel so comically 90s, that it's almost unbearable to watch them literally kill people in a post apocalypse while slapsticking themselves only 30 seconds later. Still, I think this is a good movie and I's watch it again, because the concept is good and, first and foremost, it's genuinely entertaining.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

9

Chempion1Apr 20, 2020

Я честно не знаю за что засрали этот великолепный фильм? Может просто Кевин Костнер не нравится? Не знаю.
На фоне некоторого дерьма, выходящего сейчас с оценками 9 или 10 и даже умудряющегося оскаров получать (Черная пантера например), этотЯ честно не знаю за что засрали этот великолепный фильм? Может просто Кевин Костнер не нравится? Не знаю.
На фоне некоторого дерьма, выходящего сейчас с оценками 9 или 10 и даже умудряющегося оскаров получать (Черная пантера например), этот фильм просто шедевр. И время тому доказательство. Смотрю этот фильм даже сейчас и реально слеза наворачевается!
Начну с сюжета. Ну, что сказать. Сейчас 98% фильмопрома о таком сюжете и не мечтает. Раньше его делали ради сюжета, что бы было интересно смотреть фильм. Сейчас же в сюжете главное унизить белых мужчин-гетеросексуалов а всё остальное лёгкий довесочек!
Герои харизматичные. Почти все! Им сопереживаешь, а это главное в кино, что бы было не безразлично.
Вообще в фильме очень захватывающая атмосфера. Даже не можешь представить, что в 10 метрах от экрана, скорее всего берег и плавает корабль со съёмочной группой!
Все трюки в фильме выполнены на ура. И вообще "Водный мир" находится в моей "коллекции" лучших фильмов.
Только одна оговорка. Это произведение надо смотреть в режиссерской версии. Добавлено вроде не много, но это очень дополняет атмосферу и поясняет сюжет фильма.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

0

MichaelBagameryJan 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 solelyIt 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

All this user's reviews

1

warrenworldMay 27, 2014

Welcome to Waterworld, where men need to have long haircuts, women need to have short haircuts, and Kevin Costner acts like a total retard for over two hours.

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

10

ralphpugsleyOct 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

All this user's reviews

9

gracjanskiFeb 16, 2021

I find the world fascinating of Waterworld fascinating: It is like Madmax, but on water. So people are struggling for surviving and the machines are creative.
But sometimes the movie is not realistic, because The Mariner is almost like a superhero.