n
n
n
n
n
nTitle: Waterworld (1995)
n
n
n
nDirector: Kevin Reynolds, Kevin Costner
n
n
n
nCast: Kevin Costner, Dennis Hopper, Jeanne Tripplehorn, TinanMajorino, Michael Jeter
n
n
n
nReview:
n
n
n
nSo I couldn’t end my ‘post apocalyptic blog-a-thon’ withoutnreviewing Waterworld; the most expensive post apocalyptic movie EVER made. It’snright up there with other huge budget post apocalyptic films like I Am Legend (2007)nand Costner’s own The Postman (1997), so in essence, Waterworld is actuallynking of all post apocalyptic movies, at least in terms of how much it cost tonmake. This was to be ‘Mad Max on Water’, in my book that’s a pretty excitingnconcept, best of all they perfectly achieved it! This was The Road Warrior at Sea! In scale, Waterworld is bigger than any other post apocalyptic filmnout there to date. This was a film that cost 175 million dollars to make and it was thenmost expensive film that had ever been made at the time; period! Sadly, evennthough so much time, man power, money and efforts went into making thisnparticular picture, it didn’t make as much money as expected, and so it wasndeemed a box office flop. It made its money back (255 million when all was saidnand done) but not enough to call it a winner. Kind of the same thing thatnhappened to The Golden Compass (2007), huge budget, made its money back, butnnot enough; not what the studio was expecting. Waterworld wasnconsidered a failure upon release. But why? Was the film as bad as some of thenpress it was getting? Why was it getting so much bad press?
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nMy professional opinion on Waterworld is that it in factndoes not suck. In fact, I salute Kevin Reynolds for having shot this film, makingnthis film was one hell of a task! I was re-watching it last night with some ofnmy friends and we were having a blast with it. We all agreed, the millionsnspent on the film where up there on the screen, I mean you could see the nearlyn200 million dollars it cost to make. There’s this extended action sequencenwhere the villains known as The Smokers, attack the main atoll that is one exquisitly well orchestrated action sequence! Itnincludes hundreds of extras, jet skis jumping in the air, explosions, boats,nmachine guns, they even had planes flying all over the place! They certainly pulled out all stops on that one. Normally,nwe as an audience just think “wow, cool stuff!” but sometimes we don’t evennthink about all the hard work and logistics that go into organizing a scene likenthat one. To complicate matters, everything was literally shot in the ocean; anmile off the coast of Hawaii
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nWhen the time came to make this movie, Reynolds asked StevennSpielberg 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’snanswer? “I would never shoot another picture on water” But Reynolds went andndid his picture in the ocean anyway, this wouldn’t be the first time Reynolds’snconfronted problems while making a film, but then again, making a good film is nevernan 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 innthe film (Jeanne Tripplehorn and Tina Majorino) almost drowned when a boat sanknand dragged them down into the ocean with them! A major set actually sank intonthe ocean! They had to stop production on three occasions because of Hurricanenwarnings. There was also some on set hostility because crew members didn’t havencomfortable accommodations. Rumors where running around that two stunt men hadndied while shooting an action scene, which was never true! In other words, thisnproduction was a genuine, true blue, cluster fuck of a production. The result? Kevin Reynoldsnabandoned the picture and Kevin Costner himself ended up directing part of it. Thenfinal cut of the film was not overseen by Kevin Reynolds, creative differences frustratednthe director so much he left it in other peoples hands to finish the picture. Reportedly,nReynolds and Costner had differences on the way things should be done. Accordingnto IMDB, Reynolds felt that Kevin Costner “should only star in films hendirects, 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.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nBut in spite of all these production woes, I’d say they got awaynwith making an excellent post apocalyptic action adventure, one of the bestnones 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 angreat cast and interesting (albeit not always likable) characters. Same as innDances With Wolves (1990), Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) and The Postmann(1997), on Waterworld Kevin Costner plays a rebellious leader, only on this onenhe is a hero against his will, an anti-hero of sorts. I saw this character asnrepresenting the loner, surviving in this cruel world, trying the best he cannto look out for no one but himself. Can’t say I blame him considering the kindnof world he lives in: one completely engulfed by water! No dry land to be seen!nThis guy is so tough that he doesn’t even have a name; through out the film henis simply called ‘The Mariner’. He hates kids, and doesn’t want the responsibilitynof having one. Basically, he comes off as a major butthole through the wholenfilm, but of course, as any true hero would, he soon learns to show his tendernside. Deep down inside, in spite of his apparent selfishness, he cares. So wenget the true definition of the anti-hero. Like Jack Burton in Big Trouble innLittle China (1986), The Mariner is a loner, and remains one through out thenentire picture. He loves ‘em and leaves ‘em; he’s true love is really thenocean.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nSpeaking of the ocean, the waters are dominated by a groupnof villains called the smokers, lead by a dictator called ‘The Deacon’ a mannwho believes that everything should be run on oil, that humanities problems arensolved through war and devastation.; he believesnin ruling over the masses as if they were cattle. His modus operandi is liesnand manipulation. All he cares about is finding the mythical dry land, so hencan exploit it! He tells the people he receives visions so great, that when hensees them he cries, which is all bullcrap of course. So we get a great villainnwith The Deacon, as played by the always amusing Dennis Hopper. On this onenHopper is in crazy mode, being evil even to little girls! This is somethingnthat’s kind of amusing about this movie, the little girl in the film called Enolan(Alone backwards), has a map tattooed to her back, and she’s kind of like the prophesizednchild or whatever, but everyone treats her like crap! Especially The Deacon whontells her things like “He’ll see what’s left of you in a goddamn jar!” and “Hownabout a cigarette? Nothing like a good smoke when you miss your mom, it’s neverntoo late to start” So we get an amusing villain, one that represents the worstnin government. And yeah, this is a film that hits on dictatorships and thendirty nature of politics. The Deacon is a leader who puts on a show, as if he wasnthe peoples savior, but deep down inside all he cares about is using the peoplento achieve his twisted purposes. He sees dry land as something to be exploitednto the max, so at the end of the day, Waterworld is a very environmentalist picture.nThe villains on this film sail around on an oil tanker called ‘The Exxon Valdez’, an allusionnto the Exxon Valdez environmental catastrophe. It seemed to me that the filmmakers behind Waterworldnsee these oil hungry companies as villains; enemies to the environment whonshould sink to the darkest levels of hell. The villains in the picturenrepresent a society (much like ours) that’s completely reliant on the blacknblood of the earth. So Waterworld can be added to this batch of films that begsnthe powers that be to find and develop a new, cleaner form of energy; one that doesn’tnplace so much stress on our planet.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nSo what we got here ladies and gentlemen is a film that gotna 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 lovenseeing it happen. Just look at Britney Spears, she was big for a while, thennshe was shot down by the very same people who made her. People love bad newsnmore than good news. Reynolds himself said in an interview he did for Den of Geek.com:n“People were so hungry for bad news, because it was so much more exciting. Theynjust said it, and it hurt us” Reynolds own take on Waterworld? “I don’t thinknit’s any better or worse than most summer blockbusters, it’s somewhere in thenmiddle. I think yeah, it’s certainly got its faults, but I think, you know, onnanother level it works quite well compared to some of the other big films. Bynthe end, people, they wanted it to be a disaster. And in fact, Lou Wasserman, whonwas head of MCA at the time, he said that he thought the bad press on thenpicture cost us 50 million at the box office.” So folks, after all is said andndone, the evidence tells us that Waterworld was unfortunately a film that fornsome reason the press chose to kill, same as many celebrities they zero in onnand whose careers and lives they destroy. I say this film needs to be given ansecond chance and seen for what it was never seen as upon its original release:nan enjoyable action adventure flick, and one of the most impressive postnapocalyptic films ever made. By the way, I recommend checking out the director’s cut, it makes for a more epic and complete viewing experience.
n
n
n
nRating: 4 out of 5
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n