Stephen Bird "Waterworld" promised so much but delivered so little, what was meant to be one of Hollywood's continuing big blockbusters turned out to be a disappointing flop, some have described it as Mad Max on water, only "Waterworld" isn't a patch on those films. Yes there were positive points to be taken from the film, the action sequences were very impressive, minimal if any special effects were used, instead the film relied on old school techniques to captivate its audience, something that was becoming increasingly rare in this age of film making. The acting was uninspiring, from an actor the caliber of Kevin Costner I was expected much more as Costner is capable of much stronger performances, this was not one of his finest films. The star I was most impressed with was Dennis Hopper, he played the role of the villain, Deacon, leader of the Smokers cult brilliantly, animated and fantastical the guy was like something lifted straight from a cartoon; alas the rest of the supporting cast appeared lackluster and somewhat amateurish, Jeanne Tripplehorn is a relative unknown and you can understand why watching her weak performance as Helen. It promised to dazzle, promised to keep you enthralled, but the film never seemed to get out of second gear..., it had mountains of potential with its eye watering budget, but failed miserably in its execution; the ending left the door open to a potential sequel, and it looked as though the producers were indeed planning a sequel, but a second part failed to materialize largely in part due to a poor box office performance and negative backlash from fans and critics alike. "Waterworld" isn't necessary a bad film, but with all the hype and eager expectation weighing it down, it just grossly disappoints, nothing wrong with giving it a watch, just keep your hopes to a minimum.

alamin72103 I can't explain how much I love this movie.I watched more then 10 times in last 3-4 years and today I am going to watch it once again.I don't know why review of this this movie on IMDb is low. I think this movie deserve more rating. I love this movie as much as pirates of the Caribbean.Direction, background music, editing everything, just perfect.

slightlymad22 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.

danielaustin-735-484497 I really never got why this film was slated the way it was. I've just sat through 2 hours of Mad Max Fury Road which got good reviews and isn't half as good as this. The story is believable, the effects good and the pace of the film is excellent. This is really a mad max on wheels minus some of the real grit and gore. Saying that it's an enjoyable film. It is Hollywood No debating and doesn't have real depth but what really do you want from an action movie? I've always thought this was a good film albeit a little cheesy. Over the past 37 years I have realised the critics know squat! They rate films because they think they will be noticed for rating off the cuff and small budget films. If you want to be entertained for a few hours you could do a lot worse. A solid 7.5/10.