Costner isn't amazing here, but he's not bad. Hopper is a little too hammy, but still fun to watch. Jeanne Tripplehorn looks good, and I wish her performance matched her looks, but she's not terrible either.
Maybe it's because I saw this at a young age and was so floored by the concept that I'm unable to join the masses who hate this movie, but honestly it's really pretty good. It dosn't deserve the jeers it gets.
Its so badly ripped from Mad Max and it really is so stupid yet it does look good. The cast is also bad, loads of henchmen running around, Costner on his mid 90's ego trip getting rather alot of airtime haha and Hopper is no good as a baddie here, the problem is its a run of the mill gangs and loner plot attached to a very good sci-fi plot and the two just dont work.
Drifter: I know the code. But I'll give this one to you for free.
Mariner: Nothing's free in Waterworld.
It is no surprise that Kevin Costner could ruin a movie with a great concept.
What if the ice caps melted and the world was covered with water? Well besides the fact that there isn't even enough ice to melt and cover the earth, apparently there will be a couple types of people, smoking pirates who are evil for no real reason, regular folk who are generally short tempered, and mutants. And now you have Costner, trying to be this cool anti-hero that evokes Snake Plisken, when the only cool thing he has is his boat.
It's easy to admire the production values of a movie like this, Costner spent over half a year making this movie at the expense of his marriage, but when it doesn't really go anywhere with it's premise except some flimsy excuses to have action scenes, it doesn't really matter.
I always remember coming out of the theater with my dad after this movie, which was a long slog that lasted over two hours, both of us thinking, "gee that sucked." Its kinda sad when the best part is seeing the Universal logo covered with water at the very beginning.
Deacon: You know, I thought you were stupid, friend. But I underestimated you; you're a total freakin' retard!
With these few lines above to describe the background of the story, it's maybe no wonder that people may feel a bit disgruntled already by the prologue. Truth be told, I expected Waterworld to be pretty bad the first time I saw it in the late 90's. I mean, the title alone emits vibes of palpable cheesyness. However, as many such movies had proven me wrong in the past, I chose to see it with an open and unbiased mind. And boy was I pleasantly surprised! Sure, the script isn't the best and the bad guys are pretty lame (Smokers, geez, I wonder how long it took to come up with that name), but what it does have is a great concept and a pretty good sense of adventure, made even better by a striking music score.
I always tend to think of this movie as "Mad Max on water", as the post-apocalyptic mood and setting is very much the same. And if you choose to take it for what it is, you're in for a quite fun experience. Just sit down, grab some popcorn and leave your pointer and science hat on the shelf for two hours. Because this underrated spectacle is meant to be enjoyed, not be ranted upon simply because its popular to do so.
Challenge of the week: Jack Black has a small role in this movie. Think you can spot him? :-)