Waterworld

The second collaboration between Kevin Reynolds and Kevin Costner didn't receive as much recognition as the first one (Robin Hood), but it's not completely bad. The screenplay is inventive, and the idea of a flooded world is pleasantly mysterious. The discovery of dryland is thrilling, and Costner is absolutely perfect in his role of a sea wolf. The action sequences are incredibly well-directed, and the overall dynamics of the film are more than good. Perhaps the only downside is the excessively explosive ending with several typical heroically awkward moments, but it can be overlooked. The underwater scene is fantastically chilling, as are the final five minutes. Although this film, which cost 175 million dollars, didn't show us anything groundbreaking, it is a relatively interesting and inventive Hollywood blockbuster, where I am willing to forgive some of the excesses. (05/27/2006)

The theme is certainly impressive and the atmosphere of the post-apocalyptic water world is sympathetically exotic... What kills the film are terribly cheap replicas, terribly cheap action scenes and sometimes very cheap tricks. However, the expedition is generous and here and there, everything goes the way it is supposed to. Kevin is decent in the role of the amphibious vagabond, but the sweet-romantic rebirth of his personality really belongs somewhere in the B-movie category. If it weren't for the budget, this film would firmly belong there, but from a certain point of view it's actually quite an interesting spectacle. But the film truly is naive. (08/13/2007)

While I like The Postman better (dare anyone tell me I'm a pervert), Waterworld has its charms, too. The story is as simple as can be, but everything is saved by the monumental set design, admirably spectacular action scenes, a mutant Costner and an entertaining (if at times unnecessarily overacting) Hopper. Waterworld also has one of my favorite soundtracks that was made after 1990. (07/23/2010)

Not bad at all. Actually, Waterworld is a nice exotic adventure with an excellent subject. If it had been directed by Steven Spielberg, it could have been an unforgettable contribution to the genre. But even so, despite the spasmodic final third, it’s still a bombastically presented and rather intelligent Hollywood blockbuster that, unlike many others, I can watch again and again, and never get bored or irritated. And Kevin Costner fits it perfectly! (01/03/2003)

The first two acts are great, and if the whole film was like that, I wouldn't hesitate to reach for the highest rating. But the botched ending with the "liberation" scene from the tanker completely spoils the good impression. The scene where Costner runs through the tanker and sets it on fire is very bad, and what followed, including the bungee jumping, gave me fits of laughter. Also, the over-acting Dennish Hopper wasn’t a very fortunate choice, either. (07/21/2002)