Review of Waterworld

Introduction

Waterworld came in 1995, starring Kevin Costner - one of Hollywood`s hottest properties after the successes of The Untouchables, Dances With Wolves, JFK, Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, The Bodyguard and A Perfect World. It is amazing what one film can do to a great career...

The decision to shoot Waterworld on location in the middle of the ocean rather than somewhere sensible like just off the coast somewhere, or in a big lake proved fatal - the cost spiralled out of control and a crucial set sunk in a storm and was unusable. Rumours of the director walking away before the film was completed didn`t help and the film was mauled by the critics and sank rapidly. If it had been a $10m picture, it probably wouldn`t have mattered, but Waterworld cost a staggering $175m.

Six years down the line, is it really that bad?

Video

Video comes in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen and for the most part is of a high standard.

During the title sequence, there is a great deal of dirt, and I was sitting thinking "oh-no", but as soon as the film starts, the dirt goes. Odd that it wasn`t cleaned up though.

When it was released, Waterworld was billed as having some of the best special effects ever done. In the year 2000, I laughed heartily at the utter cheesiness of some scenes - especially when the Mariner takes Helen to "dry-land" at the bottom of the ocean which looks terrible and features some of the worst rear-projection you`ll see this side of a 70`s James Bind film. Also worthy of the wooden spoon are most medium-long range shots of the Smokers` oil tanker which again looks dreadful. Another notable special effects disaster is any scene involving the hot air balloon - from the launch when it is already outside when you first see it but bursts through the roof of a building when it takes off - to the awful high-shot of it where it looks like a Monty Python interlude.

The Atol set used for he first half-hour or so looks good though and provides a reasonably realistic haven for the drifters.

Audio

Sound comes in Dolby Digital 5.1 and like the video is of a good standard.

I watched the film at a friends house in Pro-Logic and there was plenty of rear channel action, and good range in the sound. Dialogue was also clear throughout the movie.

I also checked the sound on my own Dolby Digital system and as you would expect, it sounds a great deal better, with good use made of the available range and channels.

The music is cheesy in the extreme during the opening sequences and battle scenes and is very poorly suited to the film.

Features

Many movies that bomb at the box office arrive on DVD laden with extras to help recoup some of the losses - not so with Waterworld where we only get production notes, cast and filmmaker`s bios and a theatrical trailer.

It would have been nice to see a decent documentary on the making-of, telling us how the sets were built etc but presumably nobody who was involved ever wants to publicly admit to it.

Conclusion

I`ve never watched Waterworld all the way through before - in fact I`ve only really seen the first 40 minutes or so. I had wondered why it got such bad reviews, after all the start is spectacular, fast paced and entertaining with some humour thrown in for good measure. Having now seen the remaining 80 odd minutes, I can confirm that the film stinks big-time.

After the initial sequences on the Atol, Costner heads out to sea and the film becomes uninteresting and tedious. When you throw in a meeting with the world`s most annoying person (an Irish drifter), the irritating stupidity of the Smokers and the predictability of the plot, the entertainment at the start is soon forgotten.

The film should have been heavily edited - down from the 129 minutes to nearer 100, or even 90 minutes. This running time would of perhaps held my interest, but both myself and a friend who watched Waterworld with me sat looking at our watches, desperate for it to finish so we could watch something (anything) else. The opening sequence, followed by perhaps a 10 minute lull before building quickly to the climax may have made the movie watchable. Perhaps we could see a director`s cut in the future :)

Sound, video and extra features are really irrelevant with Waterworld as the film doesn`t warrant being in any collection - my advice to those who haven`t seen it is don`t bother, but if you really want to, rent it for an evening, but get something else as well in case you have to turn it off before the end.

Ideally hire Mad Max 2 - Waterworld is after all Mad Max at sea, but not nearly as good.