Waterworld (1995)
5/10
neither terrible nor great -- fun fantasy, stupid science fiction
2 June 2000
Waterworld wasn't a terrible movie, but it wasn't a very good one either. As a special effects showcase, it's wonderful, even if much of the vast budget ended up on the bottom of the ocean. As science fiction, it's stupid: Kevin Costner's gills, the mountains covered but flooded cities accessible, paper valuable but cigarettes present in quantity, etc. As a post-world-flood fantasy story, it's a decent story. If it hadn't been a rip-off of the Mad Max movies, the story would have deserved more credit as decent light fantasy.

The best thing that could have been done with the story would have been to rewrite it into a romantic comedy in a science-fantasy setting -- that would have taken advantage of its better points, and reduced its failure to be a strong high seas remake of Road Warrior. I know co-writer David Twohy can do better work -- he wrote and directed the science fiction masterpiece The Arrival one year later. Too bad he wasn't as sharp on this one.

The character development is actually pretty decent, between Costner's blandly-acted character, beautiful Jeanne Tripplehorn, and amazing Tina Majorino. The other characters are filler, although Dennis Hopper is an amusing villain.

The best things about the movie are the cinematography and Tina Majorino's acting. The worst thing about it is the fact that its budget could have been spent to make several better movies.

My comments are based on the ABC television version, which is apparently 40 minutes longer than the theatrical release.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed

 
\n \n \n\n\n