Rating: 
Summary: Why do people hate this movie?
Review: It sux!!! That's why. It's bland, boring, titious, stupid, uninspired, predictable, and well let's just say if the MST3K team is reading this review, get back together and tear this terrible piece of junk up! I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE THIS MOVIE!!! This is absolutely terrible, so to make it easy, never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever see this terrible excuse for a "movie." Kevin Costner should have be banned from hollywood for this piece of junk. PLEASE, I beg you, don't see this movie!
Rating: 
Summary: Good Film
Review: Not a "great" film but a "good" film. If you liked Mad Max then you should like this film. It's like Mad Max on the water...:+)
Rating:
Summary: Why do people hate this film?
Review: I regard this movie as the ultimate escape. It's exotic, tropical and the 'seascapes' are simply stunning. I guess it's popular to hate Waterworld. But for what reason? Okay, so it never made as much money as Universal wanted, but it's all up there on the screen and it DID make a profit. It's not the flop everyone thinks it is. I found Kevin Costner to be actually quite effective as the (fish) man with no name (they only refer to him as 'The Mariner' a couple of times) and Dennis Hopper is simply great as the bad guy, much better than he was in Speed. The action is very exciting and tho it's far-fetched and ridiculous it never fails to entertain. Bizarrely enough, the best scenes of the film are the quieter scenes aboard the Catamaran. It's here that a certain mood takes effect and the entire pace changes. This is aided by James Newton Howard's breath-taking score. I'd seriously recommend hunting down the soundtrack CD to this one. It's a shame the 3-hour cut is not available on DVD (explaining what became of Mount Everest) but this 135 minute version is all we have at the moment. Tho this particular DVD features an outrageous DTS 5.1 soundtrack in FULL BITRATE. The anamorphic 1.85:1 picture also looks superb.
Rating: 
Summary: Mistreated, Somewhat
Review: "Waterworld" was Kevin Costner's "Rocky": he put everything into it, with the goal of creating a lasting epic. It went over-budget, with estimates ranging from $110 million to $200 million (in 1995), and was hyped so much that living up to its billing became impossible. Okay, what I just said is what most people talk about when reviewing this film. But, what about the film? It tells an interesting story about a post-Apocalyptic Earth, flooded almost entirely by melted polar ice caps. Costner plays the nameless Mariner, a mutated human with webbed feet and gills, who swims like a fish and breathes like a fish or a human. He roams the seas in his complex, mechanized, pieced-together catamaran, trading and surviving as a loner. Then, he meets a woman, Jeanne Triplehorn, with a little girl, Tina Majorino. The girl has a tattoo on her back, of a map that supposedly points the way to the then-semimythical dry land. Pirates, called "Smokers", are after the girl, lead by the splendidly evil and oily Dennis Hopper, who leads his people by posing as a prophet. The scenery is magnificent, the musical score is very good, there's lots of action, and the effects are very good. While Majorino and Hopper play their parts well, Costner and Triplehorn come off flat, aloof, and hard to identify with. Costner's character is supposed to be hard-shelled and aloof, but he overdoes it, takes too long to warm up, and never gets all the way there. Overall, this is a highly watchable and amusing action film. It's not the great epic Costner wanted to make.
Rating:
Summary: Waterworld sinks
Review: this is about Kevin Costner who is part man..part fish and he can breathe underwater and he has his own sailboat thing...teh earth is now all covered in water..which was a good idea for a movie but yeesh..did it have to be this bad..with the annoying Dennis Hopper as the badguy..you'd only wonder....some..and I say some good action set pieces but it all goes for a dip early in...other actors include Kim Coates..an unrecognizable Jack Black and Jeannne Tripplehorn..if your a Costner fan thats fine if you like this but dont waste your time to see him pee in a filter and then make it into water and then having his drink it...thats just a steeraway
Rating: 
Summary: The water logged epic
Review: "Waterworld" is Kevin Costner's (who produced it) magnum opus. It is the future, the polor ice caps have melted, and Mariner (Costner), a mutant human, agrees to take a woman and a young girl to mythic Dry-World. They are persued by the Smokers, led by the funny Dennis Hooper. This movie is not that bad folks. Yes, I thought the pirates could have been a little more mean (well, a lot more). The reason for Costner's mutation is never explined. Costner himself seems a little wooden, but with all the stuff in production, I can't blame him. I remember the problems during production, the set was destroyed during a bad storm and the film ran well over budget. But for all that, it is still an excellent action thriller. The city under water was real cool. There is so many pros that I am sorry it has got the bad reputation it has.
Rating:
Summary: A great movie
Review: I'm a little confused as to why this movie gets so much negative response. I personally really enjoy it and find the entire movie to be a great adventure. I Love the gadgets and advancements the Mariner (Costner) has on his awesome sea craft. It's great to see modern items we take for granted to be held in such high regards in their world. It takes little more than a halfway decent imagination to fill in blanks the film doesn't spell out for you word-for-word. I like that there are pieces to the puzzle you're left to conclude yourself. Who knows what may have happened to cause Costner's character to mutate (for those of you who've not seen this movie, it's a slight mutation, not a freakish show of sorts. He simply has gills behind his ears and webbed feet) -- a lot of radiation and nuclear hazards exsist in the world -- who's to say he didn't run into a pile of hazardous waste at some point prior to or even during the appocalyptic glacier-melting that helped advance his evolved state? It's a great movie to get lost in and allow your imagination to go wild. 5 stars.
Rating:
Summary: I Have Never Been in the Movies in my Life...
Review: ...because I have seen this film. When I was in school, we had water days...teaching how important the water is for us...we had to watch this film! It was a horrible experience !!! I have never been in the movies since I saw this...I have a trauma...let's say about this film...that there's mutants...no I can't tell no more...I feel sick. There shouldn't be films like this! One reason why I have to go to the psychiatrist is this film! It was so horrible! You don't wanna know anything about this film! It is awful! Please don't watch it! It is almost like you would kill your inner self!
Rating:
Summary: The water . . .
Review: I like the water, . . . a lot. I don't know why I have this thing for post-apocalyptic movies, but the freshness and seemingly clean and pure environment, puts it miles ahead of other post-apocalyptic movies I have seen . . .. I like the water. Oh, and I like Kevin Costner movies, too. His seemingly nonchalant attitude puts him very high on my cool list, even though he might have trouble with some of the intimate scenes in his movies. But anyway, he's cool, and so is Dennis Hopper; like always.
Rating:
Summary: Time might be on its side
Review: "Waterworld" opened in 1995 to a great deal of public curiosity, not over its quality as film, but over its budget. Widely publicized as the most expensive movie ever made, "Waterworld" was judged not by what was on the screen (which was a heck of a lot) but how much it cost to put it there. Going on ten years later, my only question is, who cares how much it cost? No big Hollywood movie today is made for less than $100 million, and most of that goes to computer graphics designers. "Gladiator," for example, probably cost as much as "Waterworld" did, and 98 percent of it was digital. Kevin Reynolds and Kevin Costner, however, put real actors, real stunts, real sets and a real ocean in their film, and today it just feels more impressive than many contemporary films. In other words, time has been kinder to "Waterworld" than critics were in '95. The movie is by no means a masterpiece. But don't be misled: it succeeds as an action-packed piece of entertainment, perfect for a slow night. Reynolds found interesting ways of shooting the action, and blends a lot of humor in with the bombast. He knew the whole thing was preposterous; how else to explain many of the bizarre sights and effects that are wall to wall in this movie? "Waterworld" is so weird that it's almost refreshing. How many current "blockbusters" can you say that about? Costner took a lot of heat for this movie; I can't say that it was the smartest career move for him, though "Message in a Bottle" is by far worse. In going back and researching Joseph Campbell's ideas about the heroic myth, however, I realize that Costner's half-man/half-fish Mariner is a hero in the classic mode, on a quest for his own humanity and to (albeit inadvertantly) "save" mankind. Costner plays the role straight, with grim humor and palpable muscle, which is actually the right contrast for Reynolds' Spielberg-on-dope approach to the action. There's a lot of fun stuff in this movie. I'm sure that most of what they spent ended up on film, and for me that's enough.
|
