Waterworld-It Floats
Waterworld is a funky movie. While, it is a weak film overall, at least it is different. There had never been anything like it and there probably won't be anything like it again, at least for quite a while. Its not the worse film ever made as many would claim, however, it is rather silly. In 1995, the concept that global warming could be a bad thing was considered the fantasy the granola farmers living in Oregon and the like. Besides, if there had been anything to worry about the scientists working for the oil companies would have let us all know. Today, unless you watch one particular “news channel,” you're probably aware that global warming appears to be, well, kind of real, uh?
So what makes Waterworld funky and kind of silly is the way that the concept is expressed. The idea is that our current way of life has broken down as global warming melted the ice caps and put just about all land under water. In fact, dry land is now a myth. Gangs of thugs ride around on jet skies, which have somehow, remarkably stayed operational complete with repair parts and gas, go figure and fresh water is hard to come by. There are floating shanty style towns and, of course, everything and nearly everyone is barbaric. If you like logic flaws, this movie is for you. And did I mention that Kevin Costner's character, a lone-wolf type called Mariner is a mutant with gills and web toes. You have to wonder if some of these folks actually read the scripts or just sign off if it comes from “the right person.” But that is a different story.
So, its dumb, its dumber than it sounds. Its really dumb and its really expensive. The true price tag is a big mystery to this day, but it was probably about $200 million, maybe more, back in 1995, thus very expensive. Yet, in defense of Waterworld, they built pretty near everything you see on the screen. Compared to other blockbusters Waterworld seems to have actually put their budget to fairly decent use, as you do feel there is a lot of “bang” for the buck, its just that the “bang” is pretty stupid. In terms of appropriate use of funds, Waterworld fairs much better than say a film like Superman Returns or Batman Begins which have similar budgets and leaves one asking, “where did all that money go?”
To an extent, Waterworld has received a bum rap, as it is not the complete disaster that it was portrayed as being. Yes, the film isn't very good, but it was not the huge money pit that the mythology would have us all believe. Oversees, the film did pretty well and when all was said the film might have not done all that poorly on the money end of things. The film was able to pull in some large box office numbers and qualify as a big time hit, due to the fact that there was a bit of a media circus around the film and the Costner name was still something of a box office draw back in the stone age of 1995.
However, what always strikes me as odd about the film industry is that a writer can crank out a film that is truly a turkey and one that looses tremendous sums of cash and they keep on producing more of that person's screenplays. If in the airline industry you were making planes that crashed, you wouldn't be heading up other projects. You might work under others, but you wouldn't be a key person for a very long time, if ever, even if no one died. But, writer David Twohy has gone on to pen numerous big budget films, including Pitch Black and The Chronicles of Riddick, which was a sad effort. Part of the problem is the Hollywood mythology that it is “complicated” why films fail. Sure, but it isn't complicated when films suck. That is pretty uncomplicated. If I was paying the bills and a writer delivered a 50% hit ratio wouldn't make me very happy, its great for baseball, but this isn't baseball.
Waterworld could have been better with a more fully flushed out concept. Maybe showing the collapse of the old world would have helped orient people a bit more. The story is littered with large logic errors, that a careful, patient, well-thought out screenwriter would have nailed. No one is perfect and you can't catch everything, but some of Waterworld's errors were just too large to ignore.
Story C-
Acting B (Good grief, could I have done without Dennis Hopper.)
Visuals A (Waterworld is definitely visually interesting and visually innovative.)
Originality/Innovation B+ ( I must give Waterworld some points for originality, for at least the film is different.)
Enjoyability Grade B (While annoying, Waterworld is interesting enough and weird enough to be somewhat entertaining.)
Home Theater/HD Factor A
Overall Grade B- (The novelty of the film is really what pulls its grade well up. The story is definitely a mess and just plain silly at times, but the unique look of the film and the tremendous effort that went into set construction make it a film that most movie buffs will probably want to see. Waterworld deserves a little extra pass when contrasted to many of the more recent blockbusters that seem to manage money even less efficiently than Waterworld.)
|
