Revisit:
Waterworld
Dir: Kevin Reynolds
1995
(Don’t) Revisit is a series of reviews highlighting past releases that now don’t deserve a second look.
Nothing says summer like bad, bloated summer movies. Waterworld is one of the most notorious flops of the ’90s and was one of the decade’s reliable punch lines. It arrived in theaters on a wave (pun intended) of negative, troubling press and there are all sorts of interesting tidbits on its imdb page. It was over budget, the shoot went long, part of the floating set was destroyed by a storm, star Kevin Costner and director Kevin Reynolds (whose working relationship went back to 1985′s Fandango) clashed and Costner apparently behaved like an ego-driven asshole. His oceanfront lodgings reportedly cost around $4,500 a night, while the crew lived in relative squalor. There were also no convenient bathrooms on the set, Mark Isham’s score was rejected for being “too ethnic,” and Buffy creator Joss Whedon, who did eleventh hour re-writes, called it “seven weeks of hell.” Wags, knives sharpened and ready, dubbed it “Kevin’s Gate,” a joke recycled from Dances with Wolves, and Fishtar.
But the critics had been wrong before, as Dances with Wolves, which also seemed doomed, won seven Oscars. However, Waterworld was marked for death and, until Titanic two years later, was the most expensive movie ever made (about 175 million). Though the reviews were consistently mediocre, it wasn’t the utter failure that some anticipated (maybe even hoped for?) and it eventually made money, albeit with a lot of help from the overseas market, where its terrible dialogue wasn’t so apparent.
As ’90s flops go, it wasn’t the total clusterfuck disaster of The Bonfire of the Vanities, which warranted an entire book about its failure, it wasn’t the completely forgotten fiasco of Cutthroat Island, and it has yet to find cult/camp status like Showgirls. It did, however, help derail both Costner and Reynolds. Reynolds post-Waterworld oeuvre includes 187 and Tristan & Isolde. Costner was never a great actor, but he had a certain normal, everyguy quality and low-key authenticity, a little like Gary Cooper, but without his presence. And he was coming off quite a streak with films including Wolves, Bull Durham and Field of Dreams.
But enough prologue, on to Waterworld! So it’s the future and the polar ice caps have melted turning the world into…Waterworld! Costner is a lone wanderer with a cool ship and, for reasons unexplained, gills. He, like evolved or mutated or something. When we first meet him, he’s turning his own urine into water. As character introductions go, it’s not exactly “Bond. James Bond.” He stops at a ramshackle floating city, meets a girl (the briefly hot thing Jeanne Tripplehorn), and an annoying kid with a map on her back. The citizens throw him into jail for his gills, but he escapes when a gang of baddies led by the Deacon (a scenery chewing Dennis Hopper) attacks. They want the girl, whose map leads to mythical “dry land.” Are you still keeping a straight face? If so, you’re doing much better than I am. I mean, how could anybody in this pitch meeting not have cracked up?
As many contemporary reviews pointed out, Waterworld pretty much outright and unashamedly ripped off the Mad Max movies, even down to an eccentric gyro-copter pilot character. The costumes look like a combo of Road Warrior leftovers and Burning Man, with a little of The Warriors gang flavor. The floating city is part dirty frontier town, part Thunderdome, and part Mos Eisely. And, if that’s not obvious enough, there are echoes of about a dozen other movies, including Star Wars, Planet of the Apes and any number of westerns that feature a solitary figure helping out a village/woman/farm/etc. What you’re struck by is not so much how bad it is, but how mediocre and silly it is. At least the film looks good and the action sequences are well-done, if conventional. But the premise is hopelessly ridiculous (although an eco-action movie might do better now), the script is laughable, the attempts at topicality (the bad guys’ headquarters is the Exxon Valdez) awkward, and the acting is decent to terrible. It’s also about 30-40 minutes too long, Costner’s Achilles heel.
And if you want to blame one person for its failure it might as well be Costner. Supposedly Reynolds walked off with a few weeks left and Costner finished it. It’s one of his worst performances: wooden, dour, distracted, and awkward. Although it’s not entirely his fault. As written, his character is a mish-mash of Han Solo, Clint Eastwood’s Man with No Name, Errol Flynn and Bogart. Oh, and Jesus. Costner has no chemistry with co-star Tripplehorn (cute, but dull) or the annoying kid (super annoying). Hopper, who along with Gary Oldman (who was offered the Deacon role) and Christopher Walken played about 75% of the decade’s villains, at least understood that the movie needed hammy overacting and though it was a familiar role for him, he provides some much needed amusement. Because, for a dumb action movie, it takes itself way too seriously, as if they’re doing Beckett or something. Oh, spoiler alert, they find dry land. I feel a more complete filmgoer/’90s survivor for seeing this, but I don’t feel good. Despite the rather sweet cri de coeur from an online fan-who asked, “Why do people hate this film?”-it’s doubtful Waterworld will ever experience a revival. Not as bad as I expected, but by no means good. And it doesn’t even attain that badness that would make it entertaining. Oh, there is also a 176 minute director’s cut (or uncut) floating out there.
by Lukas Sherman
