Rating: 
Summary: the best movie ever!!
Review: I am very picy about moves but this one i have no probles with. It has every thing a good movie shold have, acton, comdy, a little love. It's the best!!
Rating:
Summary: I liked this movie
Review: In 1995, just about everybody was looking forward to the HUGE budget film named "Waterworld." Unfortunately, to hear the critics talk, the film wasn't worth half the money that was spent on it. In other words, very few, if any, of the movie critics thought "Waterworld" was a good, if even a decent, film. Like I usually do when it comes to the critics' opinions, I beg to differ. Earth has been totally engulfed by water, or has it? Nobody really knows, but everybody knows that there is a myth that could possibly be a fact, that dry land exists. A mysterious, amphibious man (Kevin Costner), who sails along on a magnificent boat and who can really get around to say the least, is the target of evil and greedy human beings called 'smokers.' Is there a such thing as dry land? I mean in the movie, not real life. I 100% recommend watching "Waterworld" so you can find out the rest of the storyline, everything in between, and the answer to my question. I thought "Waterworld" was a great movie. It has good special effects and scenery, great acting (especially by Kevin Costner), and a very interesting storyline. The whole time I was watching this movie, I didn't want to get up and miss a single second of it. The only thing I didn't understand about it is how there's canned foods and so many cigarettes if nobody has ever seen dry land. Other than that, this is a must-see movie for anybody who likes fantasy films, or just interesting movies. In my opinion, "Waterworld" is one of the best fantasy movies in recent years, if not of all time. If you haven't seen "Waterworld" yet, do yourself a favor and don't listen to the critics that say this movie sunk, watch it for yourself and make your own opinion. You just might turn out to like it.
Rating: 
Summary: Much better than expected
Review: Like may people I'd been discouraged from seeing Waterworld by the very bad press reports when it came out. However, when I bought a DVD system I saw the DVD in the shop and thought I'd give it a try. Imagine my surprise when I found the film to be as good an all-action film as I've seen in a long time, with very good special effect --- and I loooooove that boat of KC's. So, give it a try. Like me, you'll probably like it!
Rating: 
Summary: great movie, bad DVD
Review: Before I talk about the DVD itself, let me just say that the movie is great. It has great acting, plot, and action scenes and I reccomend watching it at least twice.As for the DVD, don't buy it. Although the movie is worth owning, wait until Universal releases an ultimate edition or at least a collector's edition (they always do) In this review, I gave the DVD 2 stars: 1 for the picture and 1 for the sound (they're both fantastic transfers) but the dvd has absolutely NO special features, which is really bad because a movie with such a huge scale like waterworld deserves some. Wait until the film gets its full treatment on a collector's edition.
Rating:
Summary: I enjoyed it
Review: The little girl in the movie, well, she made the whole movie. This is a good story, something we don't think about. It has it moments, but overall, an enjoyable film.
Rating:
Summary: Lighten up, already...it's a FUN MOVIE.
Review: I'm not sure I understand why so many people (mostly critics, who are all full of fish rot anyway) seem to so feverishly dislike this movie. The original complaint was the budget, although the movie did turn a slight profit after worldwide release (and deserves to do well as a DVD issue) and of course we all know that James Cameron's overblown chick flick outspent Costner's film (and everone else's, too) by leagues. Then there was the complaint that it was unoriginal, a "Road Warrior" rip-off, casually ignoring the fact that the plot behind "The Road Warrior" was basically the same as Sergio Leone's "A Fistfull of Dollars", itself a Western interpretation of Akira Kurosawa's "Yojimbo". Besides, these days we're subjected to cinematic releases of TV shows (BAD TV shows, at that) and "films as franchises" that spawn multiple sequels on a regular basis...so complaints of unoriginal material must go unheeded in the case of this movie. The movie itself is something to behold...it's difficult to remember that it was NOT filmed in the middle of the ocean but instead on a colossal soundstage. It makes an unbelievable situation seem very realistic, which I feel is the mark of a good movie. Can a trimaran outrun a jet ski? Perhaps not under today's civilized conditions...but during a time when gasoline may have to be synthesized using elements that we don't have to consider in the 21st century, who can predict what sort of performance can be expected from an internal combustion engine? Is the dialogue a bit wooden at times? Constantly...Dennis Hopper's villain role gets all the best lines, but that's par for the course for many action movies, which is ultimately what "Waterworld" is...and a very good one, at that. My advice: Suspend disbelief for a couple of hours and watch it. Try to forget everything you've heard (except maybe for this review) and let the movie flow (no pun intended) over you. "Water, water, everywhere/but not a drop to drink".
Rating:
Summary: good movie
Review: The movie was very enjoyable,I don't think it is the best of all but the plot was kinda different from other movies.The only think that is wrong with the story is that they didn't orginize most of the scenes very well and some of the characters remaind almost unknown.The whole movie,is based on water which make it very interesting.Other thing that I don't really like about the movie is how the characters develop in the story,the main character is rude and savage and I don't like that.There is so few things to know about the rest of the crew,I hope thay make a sequence of this movie.It was cool,it has many action scenes.
Rating:
Summary: It's not that bad, honest!
Review: OK, let's just give this film a break! For some reason that I don't understand, everyone seems to bash this movie as being terrible and a waste of money. It's not terrible! It's wasn't a waste of money! (well, maybe it was kind of a waste of money, but hey; take a look at Star Wars Episode I!) I saw this movie, bought it, and I watch it every few months because I LIKE IT! Sure, none of my friends or family will watch it with me anymore, but I still like it. Sure, the plot is thin, the dialogue is sometimes anachronistic (why does Deacon call the Mariner "a turd that just won't flush" in a world without toilets or running water?). Despite all the problems with this movie, I still enjoy watching it over and over again. It is my personal, and not quite humble, opinion that that is definitely worth something. I don't care how odd it might make me seem, but yes, I LIKE WATERWORLD! Just don't tell anybody.
Rating:
Summary: Great concept and effects, a tad silly at times
Review: Kevin Costner has a great mind. Having directed this movie you can see that from the get-go. Costner gives a great performance, and along with Dennis Hopper, makes the movie enjoyable. It is the far future. The polar ice caps have melted. The earth has entered the age of water. The remnants of mankind have either taken to living on mountain outcroppings or boats. Pirates known as Smokers terrorize these make-shift colonies, led by Dennis Hopper, who is known as the Deacon. When the Mariner(Costner) drifts into one of these outposts to trade, the people discover a secret about him, a secret that leads him to be imprisoned and sentenced to death. However, when the Smokers attack the outpost, a young woman and the child that she looks after help Costner to escape, but only if they can come with him. Shortly afterward, Costner sees that the Smokers are after the girl, and that the tattoo on her back means something that is sacred to all the remaining people on Earth. It is up to him to keep her from the SMoker's grasp and try to figure out what exactly the tattoo on her back means. The movie dragged a bit toward the middle, and 25 minutes could've easily been cut from the movie. However, in no way does it make this movie bad. Dennis Hopper provides great comic relief, and sports a couple of lines that have become a means of general conversation betweem my friends and I ('If i see him again, i'm going to cut open his head, and i'm gonna eat his brain!'). Costner's role as the Mariner, with no care for anyone or anything except himself and his boat evolves throughout the movie, with him eventually learning to care for others. The action scenes are also good, with great water effects and stunts. As one of Costner's early attempts at direction, this movie stands as one of his better ones. If you are looking for an action and adventure movie, then by all means see this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Good entertainment.
Review: The reasons for Waterworld's bashing tends to be more because of the big-budget and anti-hype than the film's actual quality. I mean, let's be honest. How can summer blockbusters like Gone in 60 Seconds and ConAir be considered good films (which they most certainly are not) while a genuinely entertaining action/adventure film like Waterworld gets a whipping from audiences. As a matter of fact, it seems mostly audiences who disliked this film because it received overall decent reviews from critics. Waterworld exists purely for action and stunts. Yes, the story has plot holes abound, but the action is great, just enough to overlook the script's problems. By now, it's a film that a lot of people have already seen due either to curiosity or those who just want to bash it. If you haven't seen it yet, I recommend it, especially to those who are unfamiliar with the anti-hype surrounding its prerelease.
|
