Waterworld Reviews

La historia es prácticamente Mad Max con el distintivo de que el escenario es un mundo plagada de agua, aunque aquí el protagonista es menos carismático.

I remember it very well, before this movie was released, there was a huge buzz about it. This buzz was quite negative as the production costs sky-rocketed to $175,000,000 and it was therefore at the time the most expensive movie ever produced (it would hold this title for only 2 years until ‘Titanic’ was released). Indeed, there is always a risk when you are shooting on water and they had some major issues during the shooting causing the budget to keep rising. In fact, it has always been considered a box-office flop although it eventually grossed $255 million even though the already high budget mentionned before didn’t include the massive marketing costs. Personally, I saw this movie in the theater when it was released. I was in the USA on holiday for the very first time (eventually, I went there about 8 times) and we went to see this flick. Honestly, I had a great time during those holidays and I was seriously exhausted when I went to see this flick so I actually fell asleep during the damned thing. That’s how exciting it was. Eventually, I re-watched it a few years later, and even though it was watchable, it was just a rather weak version of Mad Max on water. To conclude, I have seen worse but it is still an average flick and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

So it bombed, that doesn't take away from the fact that if you had a crush on Jean Triplehorn after watching Basic Instinct then this movie was a great way to watch her as a teenager in the 90s.

After the success of "Dances With Wolves" I think everyone was expecting something blockbuster from Kevin Costner. But after the well documented troubles with production, running over schedule etc etc, things took their toll. And with the so called Movie Critics that the plebs all listen panning this movie, its little wonder it failed at the box office.

Nevermind. We had VHS back then, and DVD now and voices on the internet to tell people, "This Is A Good Movie" I mean, its set almost entirely on water without solid ground in sight.

Global warming, Oil Crisis, Racism in the form of specism. Not only a good watch, but if your that way Inclined, thought provoking as well.

As for me, the rather tasty rear end of a certain tasty morsel added to some good viewing

Not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. When it came out I actually saw it twice in the theater. Reminds me of Mad Max on water.

When I think of the term 'plothole', I immediately think of this movie. This by far has got to be the most asinine script ever turned into a multi-million dollar budget blockbuster.

I mean, honestly. It's set hundreds upon hundreds of years into future (evolution of humans into 'gill-men' would theoretically take a few millenia, but let's assume 200 years at the very least, in hypothetical terms. ok, then factor in what sea water does to metal. ok, now, can someone explain to my why motorized boats are in perfect working order? and just where the HELL are they getting cigarettes from? and anyone ever own a jetski? those things won't last 2 years, let along 200+.

so basically cigarettes are in unlimited supply from 'somewhere', the bad guys have a tanker with a near infinite supply of gas for their boats that seem to last forever, and its so far into future that people don't even know 'plants' exist, some humans evolved into fish-men, and 'dry land' is just a myth that few even believe in. and when they finally reach the last bit of dry land on earth, its filled with lush forests and wild horses. I guess when all ice caps melted, no human thought 'hey, why not head for the highest ground?', and instead, stocked up on gasoline and cigarettes so they can raid 'ocean outposts' for the next hundreds of years.

there's no way to sugar coat it. this movie sucks and if you're smarter than a 5th grader, you're brain will hurt from the plotholes.