# Waterworld (1995)



## Dave (Mar 29, 2001)

Waterworld (1995) 

http://uk.imdb.com/Title?0114898

Directed by Kevin Reynolds & Kevin Costner.

Writing credits Peter Rader & David N. Twohy. 

The polar ice caps have melted, and the earth is covered by water. The remaining people travel the seas, in search of survival. Several different societies exist. The Mariner sails his trimoran over the seas in a solitary existence, drinking his own Urine. He changes his ways to care for a woman and a young girl, with a map to get to dry land tattoo-ed on her back, while being pursued by the evil forces of the Deacon. 

Although this was a box office flop, I quite liked it. The huge budget doesn't appear on the screen since it got squandered on location shooting. You would never notice that they weren't in the local swimming pool. Lots of rough sailor characters - a sort of 'Mad Max' without any wheels. The story and plot are Pants! I can't even remember if the Tattoo was a real map or not. Kevin Costner beats the bad guys in the end, anyway!


----------



## Chilly (Nov 7, 2001)

why was this movie such a flop? i mean the idea was orignal........i liked it........although i thought kevin was a bit iffy in it with his ating.someone else would have been better suited.anyone agree?


----------



## Dave (Nov 8, 2001)

The idea was good, (don't know about original!) but the story was boring. Costner is an decent actor, who do you think could have done it better than him?


----------



## Chilly (Nov 13, 2001)

*ah*

em.............im not quite sure but i feel that kevins skills werent used propely u know?

suggest some actors and ill tell u if they would abeen right for the role.


----------



## Dave (Nov 14, 2001)

Harrison Ford

Pierce Brosnan

Bruce Willis

Tom Cruise


----------



## Dave (Nov 17, 2001)

Robbie Coltrane

Jean Claude Van Damme

Rick Moranis

Jim Varney

Do you want more?


----------



## Chilly (Nov 17, 2001)

*got it!*

how about bill paxton? i feel hes really udner rated.i mean hes a great ctor. 
or maybe michael biehn? hes got thet !roughing it" look?


----------



## tokyogirl (Jun 12, 2002)

i think bill paxton might have been good in this role.  someone else who might have been good is sam neill.  i think he's an excellent actor.

the reason this movie was such a box office flop was because it made so much less than it took to make the movie.  it would be like if star wars only made like 10 million or something.


----------



## Legolas (Jul 18, 2002)

Imust have watched this film about 15 times now. I really like it, although the tacky acting is a bit of a let-down. The idea is certainly original, but I don't like the fact that all the smokers have jet-skis. I don't know why, just seems tacky to me. 

oh and that Irish man..or Scottish? he was really creepy. eeew!
:flash:


----------



## Dave (Jul 18, 2002)

Films made at sea always cost too much. Usually, they aren't at sea at all, just moored off the beach somewhere, with the cameras pointing out to sea.

This film really was filmed at sea. Not only that but there was hardly any land in it. That's why it cost so much!

IMHO I don't think it was worth it, you can't really see the difference 'on screen' and in the end, that's what really counts in a film.


----------



## skoon (Jul 18, 2002)

It flopped in part because it got a lot of negative publisity from Kevin cheeting on his wife while in Hawaii filming...I liked the movie (& own it) but my respect for Kevin dwindled...ain't he divorced now...along with so many others.  At least there's still TOm Hankes & John Travolta


----------



## tokyogirl (Jul 19, 2002)

i know.  even when i didn't like his movies, i still had respect for him as a person.  until he cheated on his wife.  in my opinion, if you want to leave some one for some one else, then just do it.  get divorced and then you can have all the fun you want.  when you do it while you're still married, there's no excuse for that.


----------



## skoon (Jul 19, 2002)

you go girl!


----------



## tokyogirl (Jul 19, 2002)

yeah!:rolly2:


----------



## Rosemary (Jan 12, 2011)

I finally got round to watching Waterworld on the television.

Strangely enough, after the 10 years since this thread was started, my thoughts were very similar to Dave's.  That it was like a version of Mad Max (which I love), without the wheels and red dust! 

The Smokers stood out far too much, looking rather like brand new jet skies!


----------



## alchemist (Jan 12, 2011)

Finally, i can see I'm not alone. I liked it too!


----------



## mr kite (Jan 12, 2011)

Waterworld !
One word ... Bobbins


----------



## murphy (Jan 12, 2011)

mr kite said:


> Waterworld !
> One word ... Bobbins


 

Bobbins?


----------



## mr kite (Jan 12, 2011)

Bobbins my friend is a northern England term for crap

Edit bit ..

Just found this in Wiki .

The term "bobbins" appears in northern English slang, meaning "rubbish", i.e. something worthless or incorrect.

Wasn`t far off .


----------



## Null_Zone (Jan 12, 2011)

Apart from the terrible reviews I alway felt the main problem with Waterworld was that the pacing was terrible to spend that long sat in a mid 90s cinema. It would be a bit more comfortable now but back then it was torture.

Watching it at home on a comfy sofa was a far more pleasurable experiance, which is kind of born out by how well it did on video. A bit like Postman really, no one in their right mind would sit in an old style cinema for that but it is surprisingly good.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jan 12, 2011)

Bombed in the US , did well overseas - over $100 million profit with dvd/video sales , so didnt do TOO badly!

Personally thought it was a great film ; good apocalyptic setting , great villian in Hopper and his dilapidated aircraft carrier. Yes it was a bit silly , but for a fantasy adventure with some comic elements it wasn't half bad. 

Mad Max on the high-seas? Yep , I'd say that was pretty spot on.


----------



## Snowdog (Jan 15, 2011)

I really liked the first half of the film, exploring a drowned world was very interesting. Those parts when he was alone on his boat were the best, for me. It went downhill when the Mad Max element came into it though. Without it the film would never have got made I guess.


----------



## Forve (Jan 16, 2011)

I quite like the movie
of course it has its minuses and at moments is too cartoonish, but the idea is pretty original and I don't really know why it failed at times when Jean Claude Van Damme's movies were considered good


----------



## TheDustyZebra (Feb 5, 2011)

My former sister-in-law, upon exiting the movie theater, had everyone in stitches with this comment:

"If there wasn't any land, why was everyone so dirty all the time?"


----------



## merry gentry (Feb 28, 2011)

I liked all the "stuff" in the movie.  The way they showed the technical aspect of how everything worked was quite ingenious.  It's just too bad that Costner had to ruin it with a less than stellar acting job.


----------



## Starbeast (Mar 27, 2011)

I believe this was the longest movie I ever had to sit through that I didn't care for, I didn't see anything I liked about it and only watched it once when it first came to video.


----------



## kythe (Mar 28, 2011)

TheDustyZebra said:


> My former sister-in-law, upon exiting the movie theater, had everyone in stitches with this comment:
> 
> "If there wasn't any land, why was everyone so dirty all the time?"


 

Good point, but they didn't have fresh water.  Also, the ocean wasn't entirely a product of nature.  It is covering what was once a polluted earth.  I would be surprised if the water *was* clean and healthy.

I actually enjoyed Waterworld.  It did have some cheesy moments, but I don't understand why it flopped.  I found it an original and cool story, overall.


----------



## Dave (Mar 28, 2011)

kythe said:


> I don't understand why it flopped.


I don't think you can say that it "flopped". It has taken $264 million worldwide:
Waterworld (1995) - Box Office Mojo

But it cost $175 million to produce and has taken 16 years to turn that profit, most of which came from outside the US. Hollywood generally wants its money back a little sooner than that, and it is regarded as a film where there was no control over the budget. As I said earlier though, that isn't quite fair either because you can see where the money was spent, it just wasn't worth it.


----------



## biodroid (Mar 28, 2011)

I thought it was good, like Mad Max on water although Mad Max was obviously better.


----------



## Starbeast (Mar 28, 2011)

The funniest part in the movie (at the end) is when Dennis Hopper and Kevin Costner are racing toward each other on jet-skis screaming at one another, then staring, Kevin jumps off and Dennis crashes and explodes (I didn't know a jet-ski could explode in a huge firey explosion). I wonder why Dennis didn't just turn his jet-ski?


----------



## kythe (Mar 28, 2011)

Starbeast said:


> The funniest part in the movie (at the end) is when Dennis Hopper and Kevin Costner are racing toward each other on jet-skis screaming at one another, then staring, Kevin jumps off and Dennis crashes and explodes (I didn't know a jet-ski could explode in a huge firey explosion). I wonder why Dennis didn't just turn his jet-ski?


 

Actually, that was the "cheesy moment" I was thinking of earlier.    These people spend their lives in the water, and they can't "drive" better than that?  And what are the chances that the Mariner could bungee jump from a hot air balloon to the exact location of the girl, without being off at all and having to swim to her?

It still was a good story, though.


----------



## Kimbo (Apr 27, 2011)

LOL.  So many plot holes in this one. Cigaretts, bullets etc etc etc etc etc. Petrol for the oilers  lol.  Oh well. It was ok if you forgot about all that.


----------



## Rodders (Apr 27, 2011)

I might try and pick this up on Play as its probably pretty cheap.


----------



## Riselka (Apr 27, 2011)

Has anyone seen the extended version of this?

Just wondering how it compares to the theatrical version.


----------



## Metryq (Apr 27, 2011)

Kimbo said:


> LOL.  So many plot holes in this one. Cigaretts, bullets etc etc etc etc etc. Petrol for the oilers  lol.  Oh well. It was ok if you forgot about all that.



It's not only post-apocalyptic movies that are like that. I've run into many people who fancy themselves "getting back to nature" in a house way out in the woods somewhere—and the house has floor-to-ceiling glass windows to view the scenery, central air conditioning, a stainless steel kitchen, 1.5 m plasma screen TV, etc.

The high tech hardware floating around in _Waterworld_ would have disappeared very rapidly once civilization fell—dry land or not. The benefits of civilization are like electricity: all of it will evaporate (and not just from consumption) if not continually replenished.


----------

