CRAP!
Total crap!
That's all I have to say.
Awful post.
Let me try to save this thread.
I just saw Waterworld for the first time recently, and I have to say, I ended up enjoying it quite a bit. I don't think the film deserves its poor reputation at all.
One review I looked at called it "Mad Max on water," which I think is largely accurate. The story is batshit insane. Costner being a fish-man is hilarious to me. But I liked those elements of the film, and I thought the story had genuine heart, some good humor, and Dennis Hopper is fucking great as the antagonist.
The cut that I watched ended up being 2 hrs 15 minutes. I guess there is also the extended television cut, which is close to three hours, and which gave birth to the Ulysses fan cut that has been making some news lately.
I also loved how nearly everything was practical: huge physical sets that today would be 75% CGI, practical physical stunts, and real objects that get blown up or destroyed in other ways.
Yeah, I thought it was pretty good. Like a 7.5/10.
Thank you for rescuing my thread. :)
Still, I stand by my opinion. This film is not good.
But what is your reasoning?
shareI'm not going to pretend to give as comprehensive and as well-reasoned argument as you, but I just find it an incredibly bloated and, for such a novel concept, visually flat movie (Kevin Reynolds was never much of a visionary) full of murky and poorly edited fight sequences, mostly engaged via water ski. And as for Dennis Hopper, he did the whole antagonist thing to much greater effect in the previous year's sublime Speed.
It's one of those films I actually wanted to champion, in view of all the negative pre-release buzz concerning its budget and the supposed ego of its leading man (and whatever else one might say about Costner, he does seem to be a reasonably decent and inoffensive guy when you compare him to some of his Hollywood peers), but whilst dismissing it entirely as 'crap' is, admittedly, rather glib and unfair (there are far, far worse big budget movies, from 1995 alone), I'd still be hard pressed to describe it as anything more than mediocre.
Nice post. After your throwaway OP I didn't know you had it in you.
I thought Hopper was great and was one of the best parts of the movie.
I'm a bit surprised you found it bloated; I thought the story was rather streamlined and, having now seen the movie, I've not understood why a lot of people say the story doesn't make sense. I will be the first to say when I think a film's plot verges on incomprehensibility, but I didn't feel that way here. The only thing I had questions about was how exactly the girl's tattoo was supposed to point anyone toward dry land--it certainly doesn't appear to be a map of any kind, as some say in the film--but then at the end we realize that it's apparently a sign of her homeland.
Regarding Reynolds, I think Robin Hood and The Count of Monte Cristo are both excellent films. His most recent film Risen is also very good, if you can appreciate religious stories.
As for Costner, I really have grown a newfound appreciation for him in recent years. He fell off my radar for a good decade, from the early 2000s to the early 2010s. But then he did the Hatfields & McCoys mini-series for History Channel, then did a handful of other movies that I liked well enough, had a significant role in Hidden Figures, and is now starring in Yellowstone. I also just watched the new Netflix show The Highwaymen with him and Woody Harrelson and thought it was quite good as well.
When I say the film is 'bloated', I don't mean to say it's 'contrived' or even 'incomprehensible'. In fact, my criticism is almost the contrary. It's too long and monotonously-paced for what is a fairly basic, no thrills, story. It just trudges on. I didn't think too much of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves either, despite the wonderful Alan Rockman, or The Count of Monte Cristo.
But where we can probably agree is Costner, who I rather like (he had a nice little run during the late eighties to early nineties with No Way Out, The Untouchables, Bull Durham, Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves and JFK), and I still root for the guy today (say what you will about the way 'Jonathan Kent' was written in Man of Steel, but he and Russell Crowe as Superman's surrogate father and real father respectively, were two of the best things about that film). He was particularly good in Mr. Brooks, a film from about ten years or so ago, where he was playing against type as a psychopath.
Well like I said, I thought the narrative was pretty streamlined and moved at a brisk enough pace. Each scene did a pretty good job of moving the plot along, I thought, while also doing the necessary character-building.
I actually just watched No Way Out for the first time a few weeks ago. It was a solid film. Surprisingly I had never even heard of it before.
Someone else mentioned to me recently that Mr. Brooks is worth a watch. I will have to check it out.
Even though it's only about half the movie that Tombstone is, I also like Wyatt Earp. Tin Cup was a cute rom-com. 3000 Miles to Graceland I think is kind of an underrated crime thriller/action film. And Open Range is a fantastic western that hasn't gotten enough attention over the years.
Tin Cup and Open Range are very good.
Unfortunately, Wyatt Earp is half the film Tombstone is despite being twice as long.
Nice save. I've always loved Waterworld. I've seen it multiple times over the years, always such a fun ride. I saw the 3 hour cut almost ten years ago when my friend had it. I'd like to see it again, I remember that there was a scene where the mariner caught a huge mutant fish, that was cool.
shareHmm, that's interesting.
Look up information on the Ulysses cut.
Apparently there are three versions of the film now:
1. The theatrical cut
2. The TV extended cut, which adds in about 45 minutes of extra footage but which removes material not suitable for broadcast TV
3. The Ulysses cut, which is a fan cut that is essentially the extended TV cut but with the removed theatrical scenes added back in
Apparently the Ulysses cut was released LEGALLY in an official new Blu-Ray release of the film, which is really interesting. I may try to tackle that one eventually, when I feel like I have the stamina for a three hour film.
Waterworld's biggest problem is that it was too obvious a Mad Max 2 rip off. It is also inferior to that film in just about every way.
Had Waterworld been a more original work I think it would have fared much better. As it is, it just comes off as derivative.
It's still not without merit, some scenes are genuinely fun to watch. Overall though I'd call it a very average film. Absolutely not one of the worst ever but not a classic by any means either. I'd probably give it 5/10 on a good day.
That sounds fair. I'd probably give it a 4/10, or, like you, a 5/10 if I were feeling particularly generous.
share