Badmovies.org Forum

We must all give kudos to Kevin Costner for creating an incredible film.  11 years ago, he created and released a film which had a great story, but was unrealistic in the extreme.  Now this doesn't qualify as a B movie because it had a total budget of over $200 million.  I feel that B movies have a budget of under a million.  Now the movie I am talking about is 1995's Waterworld.  Yes, I know you've all seen Waterworld and most of you like it.  The story was very well-written.  However, the writers of this film never studied much in their geography and biology classes.  The setting for this film is impossible and I'll tell you why:

1.  There is no way possible that every landmass on Earth can be submerged under water.  The fact is there isn't enough water on Earth to sink every landmass.  That one scene where Kevin is diving underwater to the sunken remains of Denver Colorado makes me laugh.  Denver is too high up on land and too far inland to be submerged.  Now if we melted all the ice and extracted all water from underground, how much would our lands sink?  20 or 30 feet at most.  But this film shows that all land has sunken hundreds of feet!  If I were one of the writers of this film, I'd destroy the Earth and put them all on a planet that is covered in water like what they have in the TV show Stargate Atlantis.  That would be a lot more believeable to everyone.

2.  If every landmass on Earth is submerged underwater, how is it that every human being is alive?
With all that water, the Earth becomes onlivable to land-dwelling creatures.  That water creates a lot of humidity, rendering the earth unlivably hot.  Also, the excessive amount of water would create other problems as well.  You all know what El Nino is.  That's when the surface of the pacifi ocean heats up and influences weather patters worldwide.  Well imagine the El Nino on an all-water Earth.  Forget hurricanes, you'd have hypercanes flying over the Earth's surface nonstop.  There would be no landmasses to stop them.  Earth would essentially become like Jupiter.

Ya know,regardless of the sense of this film...it STILL SUCKED. If it made scientific sense...it woulda sucked.If it cost 10,000 billion dollars-it would suck. If Jack Nicholson,Robert DeNiro,and Traci Lords starred in it..it would suck.It just was DULL.And I like Dennis Hopper. Amazing! I actually agree with Wyre Wizard!(Don't think I wanna swap spit,OK?)

Ya know,regardless of the sense of this film...it STILL SUCKED. If it made scientific sense...it woulda sucked.If it cost 10,000 billion dollars-it would suck. If Jack Nicholson,Robert DeNiro,and Traci Lords starred in it..it would suck.It just was DULL.And I like Dennis Hopper. Amazing! I actually agree with Wyre Wizard!(Don't think I wanna swap spit,OK?)

Ya know,regardless of the sense of thi- Oh wait...

Anyway, I actually liked Waterworld despite it sucking and being so illogical, (global warming, bah...) a true epic! (No sarcasm here)

I FELL ASLEEP.NUFF SED.

I sort of like the first act, it's both serious enough and chessy and creative enough. Then it sinks (no pun intended) to a really dumb and childish level somehow.

If you want to start asking questions that will drive you insane about the movie, consider this one: How come it has passed enough time from Apocalyse to people forget there was land, to allow mutants to evolve from humans, but there are still cigarettes around?

I liked the first half as well.  The world-building and mood setting was pretty good.  Then the Dennis Hopper "moroboat" gang showed up and I lost interest.   I expected a guy in bindage leathers and a mask to show up and gesticulate.
-Ed

This movie has one thing going for it: it ws head of the global warming fad than most of Hollywood was at the time..

Umm . . .
Er . . .
Well . .  .   I'm sorry, but . . . Okay, never mind --
peter j.

Well put.

The only dialogue I can ever remember from this movie was when the weird guy who wants to trade stuff with Mariner says, "It's paaaaper!" and sniffs it.

Bah, Waterworld was terrible.  Mad Max on water, and all that stuff.

And I still enjoyed it.  As annoying as he is, I actually have a soft spot for Kevin Costner movies.  

I don't really know why though, which does scare me.

Just remember, Roger Corman passed on producing a film from the script at an earlier time, because the estimated budget of $5 million was too rich for his blood and his possible return. His film I would have liked to have seen.

Count me in with the bored set on this one. Costner and scifi just seem like a bad combo to me. Another film I've given multiple chances to but always change the channel at a commercial break and forget to come back.

I like the part when Costner drinks his own pee.

I enjoyed this movie.  I think it started out great but kinda fizzled out.

dean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bah, Waterworld was terrible.  Mad Max on water,
> and all that stuff.
>
> And I still enjoyed it.  As annoying as he is, I
> actually have a soft spot for Kevin Costner
> movies.  
>
> I don't really know why though, which does scare
> me.


You love crap, therefore liking this movie is not a problem!

"You love crap, therefore liking this movie is not a problem!"

But when it involves Kevin Costner even that goes too far!

But yeah, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a really good one, but it is fun enough.  Sure it falls flat at the end, and the idea is kinda silly, but I liked what they were out to achieve, and as usual if it entertains you, it's worth the effort.  Plus I haven't seen Dennis Hopper in a role I didn't like him in.

Fearless Freep Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I enjoyed this movie.  I think it started out
> great but kinda fizzled out.


Maybe if it just ended earlier it would have been a good movie - or at least one with an interesting, non-cookie cutter ending.  We would have never known if there was land or not, or what became of those on the quest.

My biggest problem with the movie was the gill-man thing. They made him out to be the next step in human evolution and then proceeded to do nothing with it.

I actually watched this last night when it came on TV.  I loved the fact that the smokers get the gas for their boats, planes and jet skies from a crude oil tanker. Because everyone knows that oil tankers have refineries built into them.  

All in all the film is alright I suppose. It has some entertaning parts.

Despite all the logic flaws and stupidities, I enjoyed this up until the part when Costner said how he wanted to rescue the girl because "she's my friend."  CHEEESSSYYY!!  That and the bungee jump from the baloon at the end.  That completely lost me.  Let's put it this way, I'd rather watch CHERRY 2000 again than WATERWORLD.

THE POSTMAN is a much better post-apocalyptic movie starring Costner.  It's not without flaws either, but far superior.  Sadly it fizzled in the box office, because nobody wanted to see another WATERWORLD.

Waterworld may well be the best Kevin Costner movie ever!

Of course, that's about like saying "That's the least-stinky turd ever!" but I guess you take what you can get.

Sorry; NOT a Kevin "I can whine in monotone for hours" Costner fan.

Derf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Waterworld may well be the best Kevin Costner
> movie ever!
>
> Sorry; NOT a Kevin "I can whine in monotone for
> hours" Costner fan.

I'd have to put my vote in to BULL DURHAM to be the best Costner movie ever.  I love that movie - been known to watch it three times in one day.  I lived in Durham around when it was filmed, and going to the old Bulls ballpark was an absolutely BLAST.  I've never been to the new 'stadium' they built.

I'm pretty sure BULL DURHAM is the only Costner movie I own.  I sure am not rushing out to buy THE BODYGUARD or MESSAGE IN A BOTTLE.

Some might argue his best part was playing Alex the corpse in THE BIG CHILL.

Dances With Wolves is his best film.

I enjoyed Waterworld, despite the obvious flaws, such as the lack of directional control on the balloon but it still got them where they wanted to go.  I didn't bother to analyze it (although I did have the bizarre thought that the cigarettes would be terribly stale.  Odd when you consider I have always been a non-smoker).  I laughed when I saw that the tanker was the Exxon Valdez.  

The movie entertained me and that was all I asked it to do.

And for the record, I'm intending to watch Cherry 2000 before I see Waterworld again, along with Eve of Destruction and another randomly chosen chick robot movie.

Bull Durham may be a better movie, and it may star Kevin Costner, but I'm not thoroughly convinced it's a "Kevin Costner movie." I know I'm being picky here, but when I personally refer to a "Kevin Costner movie," I mean one of the overblown bombasts that is driven by Costner's need to preach his views so that the unwashed masses can benefit from his benevolent wisdom [/sarcasm]. Movies like Dances With Wolves, Robin Hood or Waterworld just grate on me. Bull Durham is pretty much the start of Costner's self worship movies, but he wasn't quite in full swing yet, so I can sit through this one (or at least I did, several years ago).

I think I need a weekend; I'm waaaaay bitter today for some reason.

I don't hate Costner as much as some other people. Certainly he is a mediocre actor, but this is common with too many other stars to be a real reason to hate him. I do hate his occasional tides of magalomania. Those are, more than anything else, the things that make both "Waterworld" and "The Postman" stink so badly in their worst moments -because they have some good ones as well.

I do think he has a certain talent as a filmmaker. I'm not among the "Dances with wolves" adorers, but "Open Range" is a very good film.