Away from the Hype: Waterworld

This one has been on the list for a while. It’s right there in my initial pitch to Film Inquiry right alongside Cannibal Holocaust and Avatar. For some readers, they will only remember the drama around the production of this movie as it dominated entertainment and normal news in equal measure.

Here was Hollywood darling Kevin Costner making an audacious movie on the open sea that had ballooned to a whopping budget of $175 million. Obviously, these days $175 million is a small MCU movie but in 1995 that was an astronomical amount of money. The biggest budget previously had been $100 million for True Lies and in that movie, James Cameron actually detonated a nuclear bomb in the Florida Keys (citation needed). 

People like nothing more than to see a Hollywood type come undone and with Costner riding high in the back of Dances with Wolves, Robin Hood, JFK, A Perfect World, and The Bodyguard it was time he got knocked off his pedestal. Of course, a troubled production doesn’t always mean a bad movie. Look at Apocalypse Now, for instance, or Jaws. But it does mean that expectations are high for the finished product.

Waterworld did eventually recoup its budget but critically it’s never been highly regarded. Following it in 1997 with The Postman pretty much put Costner’s career on its arse though now he’s having a second life on TV in the insanely popular and, in this writer’s humble opinion, awesome Yellowstone. 

For a long time though Waterworld was a cautionary tale of reach exceeding grasp and its nickname “Kevin’s Gate” speaks to another doomed production brought about by hubris: Heaven’s Gate. A movie that will be featured in these pages this year. 

I saw Waterworld on VHS the year it came out and have very little memory of it being that I was 11 and probably was doing eight other things at the same time as watching. Now, nearly thirty years later it’s time to dive back into Waterworld and see if, away from the hype, it can still float.

Waterworld

The joy of these articles is rediscovering movies that have been written off and realizing they’re actually great or if not great they’re still a lot of fun and worth watching. Waterworld can join Snakes on a Plane, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and the Matrix Sequels in the pantheon of movies that people have wrongly dismissed, and which badly need reappraisal.

When it was released, Waterworld’s troubled production hung upon it like a plague and created an expectation for it being a) a trainwreck or b) a movie that warranted a $175 million budget. It is neither of those things, which is not to say it looks cheap. The vast sets and open water shooting are breathtaking and such a huge improvement on green screen work. 

The Atoll set is such an achievement it helps the action sequences feel real and dangerous and vibrant. Characters aren’t confined in their movements by the expanses of a green screen so there’s action everywhere with explosions, flying people, jet skis and water skiers on ramps, gunfire, and more explosions. Give me this any day over two CG characters destroying another city. 

It’s obvious how that sequence ended up being the inspiration for the Waterworld stage show at Universal Theme Parks to this very day. And to digress, I saw that show on vacation a few years ago and not only does it rule, it also packs them in all day. Odd that a movie so quickly dismissed has ended up having a theme park attraction as its enduring legacy. 

Back to the movie, the plotline is simple. The ice caps have melted, submerging the entire world and creating a water-based Mad Max-esque society of barterers, gruff nomads, sneaky traders, and roving bad guys. Our anti-hero in this Waterworld is the Mariner (Kevin Costner) who is a mutant with gills and webbed feet. He ends up with Enola (Tina Majorino) and Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn), the former of whom has a tattoo on her back rumored to provide a map to the fabled dry land. 

Chasing them are the smokers, headed by an incomparable villain and scenery chewer, Dennis Hopper who is having the time of his life in this movie and steals every scene he’s in. And for a movie that was apparently such a horror to make, so many of the actors look like they’re having a ball. In fact, everyone outside of the trio of Costner, Tripplehorn, and Majorino gives such massive, fun, and slightly insane performances that occasionally you could be mistaken for thinking you’re watching a Mad Max sequel. 

The difference between the Mad Max series and Waterworld is that while you can believe Mel Gibson or Tom Hardy would abandon others to their fates (before inevitably remembering his humanity and saving the day), Costner never quite sells the Mariner’s vicious streak. It’s not an issue of acting either as Costner is doing all the right things, it’s just that as an actor he’s too handsome and likable. 

There is a scene early on where he quite casually says they need to throw the kid overboard to make room and lighten the load, and it never lands because Costner seems too wholesome to be saying it for real. You’re waiting for him to give a big “Gotcha” smile that never comes. Later in the movie when he faces down the Smokers and they ask him why he would risk his life to save Enola, he gives a slight smile and says, “She’s my friend.” and that moment lands like Sully on the Hudson. It’s a big hero moment and very much in Costner’s wheelhouse. 

Interestingly, as he’s aged, Costner has maintained his good looks and charm, but, as Yellowstone proves, he can play a real bastard now but back in the 90s he was still Robin Hood, and the idea of him drowning a child didn’t work. I respect that they try to showcase that the apocalypse won’t be sunshine and daisies, and they do lean into some horrific stuff, but the movie fits together better when Costner is in full hero mode.

It is also at its best during the action sequences as occasionally the editing of the quieter moments relies too heavily on tinkling music and fade-outs, creating something oddly melodramatic and cheesy, while the action scenes are tightly edited and frenetic. Some research pointed to editing room disputes and it shows as sometimes the movie feels like two editors working against each other. 

Overall though, how can you fault a movie with the confidence to begin by showing their hero drinking his own piss? 

Final Thoughts: Waterworld

Doing some research before writing this article I found a website that stated “reviews at the time of release described Waterworld as an incoherent mess.” I wasn’t able to find a review that backed that statement up and watching the movie didn’t back it up either. In fact, the movie is incredibly straightforward: Enola has a map to Dryland. Everyone wants it. It’s a standard McGuffin plotline with the gruff anti-hero who eventually comes to care for the people they originally saw as a hindrance. The setting is where the thought has gone, not the plot, and if you find that incoherent that might be a you problem. 

The other research I did was to message some friends to tell them that “I just watched Waterworld. It’s not bad.” To which I received a variety of versions of “It never was.” 

It’s not perfect, it’s not as well-crafted and clever as the Mad Max franchise it’s clearly based on, but it’s a great time. Had this movie had a cleaner production and positive press in the build-up to its release it would have been a hit but alas, with the kind of negative hype this movie had, it was sinking before it even got to the theaters. 

What are your thoughts on Waterworld? Do you agree? Let us know in the comments below!