(Revisionist) Movie Review : Waterworld (1995)
* Follow me on: Facebook - Twitter - Instagram *
People love a good failure story. The more ambitious and financially disastrous, the better. In a way, Kevin Reynolds’ 1995 super costly Mad Max ripoff Waterworld was meant to be remembered. It’s one of these movies that was dead in the water before it started. The production was expensive, troublesome and there was no way it could possibly challenge its own toxic hype. Until it did, years later when it became a weird cult hit. So, is Waterworld good or bad?
Let’s figure it out together.
Waterworld is set in year 2500, where ocean levels have risen up to a point it turned what’s left of humanity into post-apocalyptic sea nomads. When a nameless mariner (Kevin Costner) moors into a floating community to trade goods and stock up on supplies, things go south, he gets caught in a pirate raid and hightailed out with the help of Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and Enola (Tina Majorino). What is supposed to be a simple escape turns into a wild ass manhunt.
The elephant on the dirt road
Well, let’s address the obvious: Waterworld is a self-admitted Mad Max ripoff. The idea was pretty much from the start to create a more ambitious production that would appeal to a larger audience. The first draft was written in 1986. This explains why there isn’t an original bone in Waterworld. It was always meant to be a gutsy, but cynical cash grab that mined another franchise for inspiration. Which leads me to my first bold statement: this movie isn’t that good.
It’s basically The Road Warrior with Dennis Hopper playing a cartoonish pirate for villain instead of hulking leather-clad weirdo Lord Humongous. If you’ve seen the original, Waterworld feels like the diet Sprite, family friendly version of it. It’s the story of an outsider doing the moral thing without jeopardizing his manhood… because manly men are inherently moral or whatever. I’m sure you’ve seen that one before. That said…. this movie isn’t that bad either.
Because if the production of Waterworld is ambitious, its narrative isn’t at all. It’s just basically a few hundred adults cosplaying a watery apocalypse like it’s some Civil War reenactment. The story might be dumb and unoriginal, but it’s not the point of this movie. The point is to watch steampunk jet ski races, laugh at the colorful cast of outlaws and enjoy a shitload of explosions and Waterworld delivers on all three. So I guess it’s a quality ripoff?
So, is it good?
Waterworld definitelty isn’t my kind of movie…. but it’s kind of its own thing? Let me explain that. There are movies you don’t really watch to elevate your soul or even feel a certain way. You watch them because you know exactly what, when and how it’s going to deliver. It builds a warm sense of familiarity with every viewing. I like old Sylvester Stallone movies for that particular reason. I do poorly with large cast post-apocalyptic stuff, but that’s my problem.
I’m not going to give it my full benediction, though. If Waterworld is your favorite movie, you need to watch more movies. Starting with the Mad Max series, Lord of the Rings and fuck, throw in Star Wars for all that matters. I’ve never met anyone who thought a middle-aged, loner man/fish mutant played by freakin’ Kevin Costner of all people was a good idea. Waterworld is silly and unmemorable even if it’s spectacular more often than not.
*
Is Waterworld better or worse than people remember it to be? Well, it’s one of these movies that is properly rated for all the right and the wrong reasons. It’s marginally historical and marginally cult. It’s the kind of movie you revisit if you’re into epic, family friendly adventure movies. Same kind of crowd that is into The Princess Bride. Waterworld is not some kind of misunderstood masterpiece. It’s too squeamish and dysfunctional to be so. It’s just aggressively decent.
