Title: Waterworld (1995)
Director: Kevin Reynolds, Kevin Costner
Cast: Kevin Costner, Dennis Hopper, Jeanne Tripplehorn, Tina
Majorino, Michael Jeter
Review:
So I couldn’t end my ‘post apocalyptic blog-a-thon’ without
reviewing Waterworld; the most expensive post apocalyptic movie EVER made. It’s
right up there with other huge budget post apocalyptic films like I Am Legend (2007)
and Costner’s own The Postman (1997), so in essence, Waterworld is actually
king of all post apocalyptic movies, at least in terms of how much it cost to
make. This was to be ‘Mad Max on Water’, in my book that’s a pretty exciting
concept, best of all they perfectly achieved it! This was The Road Warrior at Sea! In scale, Waterworld is bigger than any other post apocalyptic film
out there to date. This was a film that cost 175 million dollars to make and it was the
most expensive film that had ever been made at the time; period! Sadly, even
though so much time, man power, money and efforts went into making this
particular picture, it didn’t make as much money as expected, and so it was
deemed a box office flop. It made its money back (255 million when all was said
and done) but not enough to call it a winner. Kind of the same thing that
happened to The Golden Compass (2007), huge budget, made its money back, but
not enough; not what the studio was expecting. Waterworld was
considered a failure upon release. But why? Was the film as bad as some of the
press it was getting? Why was it getting so much bad press?
My professional opinion on Waterworld is that it in fact
does not suck. In fact, I salute Kevin Reynolds for having shot this film, making
this film was one hell of a task! I was re-watching it last night with some of
my friends and we were having a blast with it. We all agreed, the millions
spent on the film where up there on the screen, I mean you could see the nearly
200 million dollars it cost to make. There’s this extended action sequence
where the villains known as The Smokers, attack the main atoll that is one exquisitly well orchestrated action sequence! It
includes hundreds of extras, jet skis jumping in the air, explosions, boats,
machine guns, they even had planes flying all over the place! They certainly pulled out all stops on that one. Normally,
we as an audience just think “wow, cool stuff!” but sometimes we don’t even
think about all the hard work and logistics that go into organizing a scene like
that one. To complicate matters, everything was literally shot in the ocean; a
mile off the coast of Hawaii .
So we’re not talking about a fake CGI ocean in the background, this was the
real ocean! Director Kevin Reynolds was to have an experience with nature while making this film, a la german director Werner Herzog, who also films most of his films in real locations under the most strenuos circumstances. Reynolds was going to make a tough movie, out in the wild, but it was going to be an experience! Making a movie out in the open sea was one of the main factors that made making this
film such an arduous task.
When the time came to make this movie, Reynolds asked Steven
Spielberg who’d shot most of Jaws (1975) in the open sea, about the pitfalls one might expect when shooting a film on open water. Spielberg’s
answer? “I would never shoot another picture on water” But Reynolds went and
did his picture in the ocean anyway, this wouldn’t be the first time Reynolds’s
confronted problems while making a film, but then again, making a good film is never
an easy task. Problems are someting you simply have to overcome when making a movie. For example: catastrophe started from day one, when the two main actresses in
the film (Jeanne Tripplehorn and Tina Majorino) almost drowned when a boat sank
and dragged them down into the ocean with them! A major set actually sank into
the ocean! They had to stop production on three occasions because of Hurricane
warnings. There was also some on set hostility because crew members didn’t have
comfortable accommodations. Rumors where running around that two stunt men had
died while shooting an action scene, which was never true! In other words, this
production was a genuine, true blue, cluster fuck of a production. The result? Kevin Reynolds
abandoned the picture and Kevin Costner himself ended up directing part of it. The
final cut of the film was not overseen by Kevin Reynolds, creative differences frustrated
the director so much he left it in other peoples hands to finish the picture. Reportedly,
Reynolds and Costner had differences on the way things should be done. According
to IMDB, Reynolds felt that Kevin Costner “should only star in films he
directs, that way he can work with his favorite actor and director” Since then, Costner and Reynolds have put all that animosity behind them, but during and after Waterworld things got ugly between them.
But in spite of all these production woes, I’d say they got away
with making an excellent post apocalyptic action adventure, one of the best
ones out there when we come down to it. I need to go on right here and speak about this films production values, which are amazing. Great steps where taking to build the sets, the post apocalyptic vehicles and make all that post apocalyptic wardrobe for all those actors, I mean this was a huge production! They even had an army of jet skies! Everything on this film was made especially for it, this alone represents a gargantuan task. But aside from this films amazing production values, we also get a
great cast and interesting (albeit not always likable) characters. Same as in
Dances With Wolves (1990), Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) and The Postman
(1997), on Waterworld Kevin Costner plays a rebellious leader, only on this one
he is a hero against his will, an anti-hero of sorts. I saw this character as
representing the loner, surviving in this cruel world, trying the best he can
to look out for no one but himself. Can’t say I blame him considering the kind
of world he lives in: one completely engulfed by water! No dry land to be seen!
This guy is so tough that he doesn’t even have a name; through out the film he
is simply called ‘The Mariner’. He hates kids, and doesn’t want the responsibility
of having one. Basically, he comes off as a major butthole through the whole
film, but of course, as any true hero would, he soon learns to show his tender
side. Deep down inside, in spite of his apparent selfishness, he cares. So we
get the true definition of the anti-hero. Like Jack Burton in Big Trouble in
Little China (1986), The Mariner is a loner, and remains one through out the
entire picture. He loves ‘em and leaves ‘em; he’s true love is really the
ocean.
Speaking of the ocean, the waters are dominated by a group
of villains called the smokers, lead by a dictator called ‘The Deacon’ a man
who believes that everything should be run on oil, that humanities problems are
solved through war and devastation.; he believes
in ruling over the masses as if they were cattle. His modus operandi is lies
and manipulation. All he cares about is finding the mythical dry land, so he
can exploit it! He tells the people he receives visions so great, that when he
sees them he cries, which is all bullcrap of course. So we get a great villain
with The Deacon, as played by the always amusing Dennis Hopper. On this one
Hopper is in crazy mode, being evil even to little girls! This is something
that’s kind of amusing about this movie, the little girl in the film called Enola
(Alone backwards), has a map tattooed to her back, and she’s kind of like the prophesized
child or whatever, but everyone treats her like crap! Especially The Deacon who
tells her things like “He’ll see what’s left of you in a goddamn jar!” and “How
about a cigarette? Nothing like a good smoke when you miss your mom, it’s never
too late to start” So we get an amusing villain, one that represents the worst
in government. And yeah, this is a film that hits on dictatorships and the
dirty nature of politics. The Deacon is a leader who puts on a show, as if he was
the peoples savior, but deep down inside all he cares about is using the people
to achieve his twisted purposes. He sees dry land as something to be exploited
to the max, so at the end of the day, Waterworld is a very environmentalist picture.
The villains on this film sail around on an oil tanker called ‘The Exxon Valdez’, an allusion
to the Exxon Valdez environmental catastrophe. It seemed to me that the filmmakers behind Waterworld
see these oil hungry companies as villains; enemies to the environment who
should sink to the darkest levels of hell. The villains in the picture
represent a society (much like ours) that’s completely reliant on the black
blood of the earth. So Waterworld can be added to this batch of films that begs
the powers that be to find and develop a new, cleaner form of energy; one that doesn’t
place so much stress on our planet.
So what we got here ladies and gentlemen is a film that got
a lot of bad press before it even got out. Not sure exactly why this happened, could it be that both films speak about environmental issues and bash on the way the governments of the world are running things? Could it be that fictional bad press is created to bring these types of movies down? This kind of situation kind of reminds me of what happened to John Carter (2012), another environmentally friendly film, that spoke about a new form of cleaner energy, and that also criticized governments and society. It also got bad press even before release and it wasnt even a bad film. Maybe the powers that be want films of this nature to flop so the create bad press around them? Things to think about, it wouldnt be the first time that the publics opinion is manipulated by the powers that be. Ultimately, sometimes people like to see the big guy go down, in fact, they love
seeing it happen. Just look at Britney Spears, she was big for a while, then
she was shot down by the very same people who made her. People love bad news
more than good news. Reynolds himself said in an interview he did for Den of Geek.com:
“People were so hungry for bad news, because it was so much more exciting. They
just said it, and it hurt us” Reynolds own take on Waterworld? “I don’t think
it’s any better or worse than most summer blockbusters, it’s somewhere in the
middle. I think yeah, it’s certainly got its faults, but I think, you know, on
another level it works quite well compared to some of the other big films. By
the end, people, they wanted it to be a disaster. And in fact, Lou Wasserman, who
was head of MCA at the time, he said that he thought the bad press on the
picture cost us 50 million at the box office.” So folks, after all is said and
done, the evidence tells us that Waterworld was unfortunately a film that for
some reason the press chose to kill, same as many celebrities they zero in on
and whose careers and lives they destroy. I say this film needs to be given a
second chance and seen for what it was never seen as upon its original release:
an enjoyable action adventure flick, and one of the most impressive post
apocalyptic films ever made. By the way, I recommend checking out the director's cut, it makes for a more epic and complete viewing experience.
Rating: 4 out of 5
8 comments:
Good job giving this film some of the positive attention it deserves. It's a decent movie but most people just brush it off because of how notorious a flop it was at the box office. I suppose "Road Warrior" on water was just too high concept for audiences at the time.
Thing is that it wasnt even that big of a flop because it actually made its money back, it just didnt make as many millions as they expected when everything was taken into account.
I dont know, I saw it again last night and had a blast with it, made me miss the good old days when things where done practically; on camera, know what I mean? That's one of the things I loved most about this movie, how much of it was done right there on the set.
Oh my god, finally someone else out there likes Waterworld! I thought I was the only one!
You aint alone JP, Waterworld is fun times, epic, loud, bombastic, and funny, I mean, The Deacon had me howling every time he spoke. "Dont just stand there...KILL SOMETHING!"
Yeah, I have a lot of nostalgia for Waterworld. It was fun 90s blockbuster. Very reminiscent of Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior though.
I don't think it was entirely necessary to make Costner's character such an a$$hole to everyone but I guess he just wanted to try something new.
You're right, critics just picked on it because of the huge budget and lengthy running time. They did the same thing with Green Lantern and Avatar and John Carter recently.
Yeah, but Green Lantern deserved it in my book, to me that one was terrible.
I'm not sure why they went with the whole asshole mode thing, but I think it was to show how long he'd been living on his own. I guess the point they were trying to make was that after someones been living alone for so long, they tend to hate changes, they tend to hate people suddenly invading their lives because they are so used to their loneliness. Or maybe they really wanted to go with the whole anti-hero thing?
Yeah, I haven't seen Green Lantern yet, I just know critics rarely like a film that has had difficulties behind the scenes or large budgets. They feel the need to bring the film down regardless of its quality.
You're probably right. It does make sense that the Mariner would be anti-social after being on his own for so long. It a nice place to start a character arc but it's also quite jarring after watching Costner play such a decent guy in Dances with Wolves and Prince of Thieves.
Definitely putting this on the re-watch pile after reading this review.
Green Lanterns pretty disastrous, I didnt even muster the strengths to write about it...you be the judge!
Post a Comment