The UnPopular Opinion: Waterworld

Last Updated on July 30, 2021

THE UNPOPULAR OPINION is an ongoing column featuring different takes on films that either the writer HATED, but that the majority of film fans LOVED, or that the writer LOVED, but that most others LOATHED. We're hoping this column will promote constructive and geek fueled discussion. Enjoy!

****SOME SPOILERS ENSUE****

In 1995, the most expensive movie ever made was released in theaters. WATERWORLD, from director Kevin Reynolds and star Kevin Costner, was long-heralded as dead on arrival at the box office thanks to months of rumors and stories about the troubled, over-budget production. Upon release, fans and critics were brutal and as a result, the movie grossed less than $100 million domestically. While the global tally ended up at $264 million, WATERWORLD was already labeled as one of the biggest bombs of all time. I remember seeing the movie on the big screen the weekend it debuted and I loved every second of it. A post-apocalyptic adventure with hints of MAD MAX and the scope of AVATAR, WATERWORLD is one of the best summer blockbusters of the 1990s and deserves a second look.

The fourth collaboration between Reynolds and Costner, WATERWORLD ended their friendship for almost two decades after clashes on set. An ambitious and sprawling blockbuster, WATERWORLD went over budget and time multiple times thanks to a hurricane that decimated the Hawaii-shot set. Filmed in a large sea-water enclosure, the $175 million production should have known things would be bad when Steven Spielberg warned the filmmakers not to make the movie on open water, citing his memories of challenges while filming JAWS. But, what was so bad about the movie to get it blacklisted before it even hit screens? We can likely thank the early days of internet movie gossip for dooming this film before it had a chance.

WATERWORLD owes a lot to earlier dystopian movies, especially the MAD MAX films. Screenwriter David Twohy has cited the Mel Gibson classic as an inspiration which can also be seen in the costume and vehicle designs of WATERWORLD. Written in 1986 and development for 3 years before it hit screens, Kevin Costner's involvement with this movie led to the departure of not only Kevin Reynolds during post-production but also composer Mark Isham. Costner, who had won the Oscar for directing DANCES WITH WOLVES in 1990, clearly knew his way around a film production. But, rather than let Reynolds do his job, Costner got in the way and wrested control of the final edit. While these battles behind the scenes became fodder online and in traditional media, is the movie that awful?

Set in the year 2500 after the Earth is entirely flooded, WATERWORLD sets up a fully realized world of floating atolls and militant leaders like The Deacon (Dennis Hopper). The Mariner (Costner) serves as a blend of Max Rockatansky and Aquaman, a reluctant hero of few words who has a mutation that allows him to breathe underwater. A cool conceit when I saw this film initially, in subsequent viewings it has served to pique my interest further. I wanted to understand more of how this world came to be and how The Mariner evolved to have gills. I wanted to learn about the 500 years that led to WATERWORLD.

For a movie that clocks in at just 135 minutes, there is a lot of world-building that needed to be done and it all clicks perfectly. Within minutes, I was able to orient myself to how things operate in WATERWORLD in regards to trade, politics, class, and power. Unlike Costner's swagger-filled Robin Hood, The Mariner is a quiet character who acts only when he needs to. This character is inspired by Mad Max but inspired Tom Hardy's take on the role. Add to that Jeanne Tripplehorn as the sexy Helen (named after the mythical Helen of Troy) and a young Tina Majorino as the key to finding Dry Land, this cast is stacked. But the scene-stealer, as always, is Dennis Hopper. Hopper was a scenery-chewing master and his take on The Deacon as a villain is as good of a character as you could hope for. He is vicious, conniving, and a master manipulator. 

Despite the bad buzz, WATERWORLD's production values show it was worth the money. Any time a film shoots on water, you are going to pay more, but this movie never looks cheap. From major action sequences with multiple water-based vehicles, there are few moments of boredom in this movie. Even the dive sequences that show the submerged remnants of skyscrapers hold up well twenty-five years later. And while Mark Isham's score was never used, the one we did get from James Newton Howard is rousing and fits the film wonderfully. Oscar-winning cinematographer Deam Semler evokes the grime and poverty of this ragtag future while editor Peter Boyle keeps things moving briskly while never sacrificing the focus on the water itself as a key component of every scene.

WATERWORLD has some silly moments and likely could have used a little more humor from Kevin Costner himself, but this ambitious movie is the epitome of what Hollywood blockbusters are capable of. Yes, some moments could have used better dialogue, but that is balanced out by the sheer inventiveness of the stunt work on display. WATERWORLD inspired stunt-shows at several Universal Studio amusement parks and for good reason. The only fault that lies with this movie were the expectations placed on it by Universal executives. MAD MAX FURY ROAD endured similar bad buzz leading to its release, but the support of George Miller's vision allowed it to become a modern classic. WATERWORLD may not be in the same ballpark as FURY ROAD, but it certainly deserves a second look.

But hey, that's just my UnPopular Opinion. Tell us your take on WATERWORLD in the comments below.