Un monde sans terre

There is no point going through this film and trying to make all the science fit. The scientific fact has been stretched to breaking point. I found this a very enjoyable experience with some of the best comic strip bad guys in any movie. Costner plays a likable, although traditional, nomadic hero taking care of no 1. Fortunately, there isn't really a love element in the film to spoil it too much. This film has numerous memorable scenes that verge on the hysterical including the oars coming out of the oil tanker, the dropping of the match into the oil tanker and Costner's bungie jump to save the girl. Great stuff. I can't wait for the producers to make a sequel.

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.

"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.

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.

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.