Waterworld
After 25 years, it’s safe to say that “Waterworld” is not THAT bad of a movie, correct? The truth is, it never really was, and I think a lot of the criticism of the film was driven by its ridiculous (at the time) budget of $175 million dollars, which would be the highest budget of all-time until “Titanic” two years later. Now, it wouldn’t even make the top 10-15, I don’t think. For what the movie is, that is an absurd amount of money to spend. Most of it shows up onscreen, however, in some of the most ambitious sets and sequences ever shot on water. You just wish there was more to the script to justify it.
Kevin Reynolds’s adventure epic starts with one of the most creative uses of a studio logo ever, as the globe of the Universal logo becomes engulfed with water, and a voice sets the stage for a time when the polar ice caps have melted, and the world is covered in water, and the hunt for dry land becomes paramount for the human species. The next thing we see is Kevin Costner’s Mariner peeing into a funnel, turning that into water, and drinking it. Not long after that, the Mariner makes his way to an Atoll, and then, finds himself with two passengers (Jeanne Tripplehorn’s Helen and Tina Majorino’s Elona) in tow, and Smokers (a group of marauders led by Dennis Hopper’s Deacon) on his trail, because a tattoo on Elona’s back seems to point to dry land. Does it exist? Yes, but not necessarily in the way some people believe, says the Mariner.
The film is set hundreds of years after the melting of the ice caps, so there’s no real time spent on what could have been an interesting exploration of humanity’s destruction of their world through man-made climate change, which really could have made this an interesting post-apocalyptic adventure. But the screenplay by Peter Rader and David Twohy is more interested in “Mad Max”-like thrills than philosophical notions of humanity, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but you wonder if some of the criticism the film took would have been mitigated if it had something going on beyond a premise tailor-made to inspire a stunt show attraction at Universal Studios theme parks. The “Mad Max” films work as well as they do because they explore the morality of their world, in addition to George Miller’s remarkable eye for action; “Waterworld” is, very much, a wannabe in comparison. I’d be lying if it didn’t do a good job of telling its story, though, and delivering some great action scenes.
“Waterworld” rises and falls with how the set pieces play out, and that’s why we keep watching this 135-minute epic. I do love the set design in this film- the Atoll and Mariner’s ship are instantly memorable when you see them, and they are built in a way that allows for a lot of different visual invention to take place, which is important for a film so limited in its locations. Add to that an exciting score by James Newton Howard, and it’s up to Reynolds to stage the set pieces in a way that holds our attention, which he does quite well, even though, yes, they are basically stunts you would see at a theme park. Still, the characters are story are just interesting enough (having a cast around Costner that includes Tripplehorn, Hopper, Michael Jeter, Kim Coates and Sab Shimono helps a lot), and the spectacle is good enough, to keep us engaged and entertained. I don’t know that “Waterworld” can completely be rehabilitated into a “classic” of its genre, but it’s certainly better than the reputation that preceded its release, and is a fun piece of popcorn cinema.
