Short and Simple Review by WubsTheFadgerFirst off, despite this film bad reputation it is actually quite good. The story is like Mad Max but instead of desert, the world is completely covered in water. The film tells the story well but does leave out a lot of details like how the smokers have gasoline, where the girls tattoo came from, and the underwater cities. But all in all, the story is fun, exciting, and interesting.The acting is dated but still good. Kevin Costner performs well and plays his character, who is a rough, mean spirited sea drifter, rather well. Jeanne Tripplehorn also performs well as a guardian of a treasured child. Tina Majorino who plays Enola can be very annoying at time and Dennis Hopper, who plays Deacon, is a generic action villain with little to no appeal.The pacing is consistent throughout the entire film but the runtime is a little overlong.Pros: Interesting story with some great elements, good performance by Kevin Costner and Jeanne Tripplehorn, and consistent pacingCons: Some details in the Waterworld lore are left out, Enola can be annoying, the Deacon is a generic villain, some out dated acting, and an overlong runtimeOverall Rating: 7.0P.S. Being a huge fan of Kevin Costner, I had to watch this film. Waterworld is not as bad as its reputation and I would highly encourage you to watch it

I can't explain how much I love this movie.I watched more then 10 times in last 3-4 years and today I am going to watch it once again.I don't know why review of this this movie on IMDb is low. I think this movie deserve more rating. I love this movie as much as pirates of the Caribbean.Direction, background music, editing everything, just perfect.

Greetings from Lithuania.I always liked "Waterworld" (1995), despite of its cult classic status of one of the most unsuccessful movies ever. You have to give a credit to those who envisioned and created this movie simply for the concept - how many movies have ever been made completely in the sea (which you can literally feel in every scene) and with this budget, which was the biggest at the time? How many movies have sets THIS good? Sure, "Waterworld" has some flaws (who doesn't?), and the biggest of them for me was always the main villain. As good as Dennis Hopper is, he was misused in this movie, and he doesn't even hint at being sinister - he is just way, WAY over the top in every scene, and most of his lines felt flat. And that's the only weak point in this amazingly looking action flick.Overall, "Waterworld" is a superb action, adventure sci-fi flick set in absolutely unique place (even to this day). It has amazing production values, great action scenes, super cool Kevin Costner and a great MacGuffin (a way of setting a story). Still, a great flick.

In the early 1990s Kevin Costner struck gold four times in a row with Dances with Wolves, Robin Hood, JFK and The Bodyguard. With Waterworld, however, he submerged himself entirely and hasn't really been able to rise above the surface ever since. This 'Mad Max on water' cost an enormous amount of money, but gained only modest success. (Though it was still better received than Costner's next post-apocalyptic vision, The Postman, which he directed himself. That movie was an undeserved box office bomb and a critical failure, though I personally found it thoroughly engaging, and overall a much much better film than either Waterworld or any part of the Mad Max franchise.)The lukewarm reception of Waterworld might be attributed to several factors. The mutant hero with gills and webbed feet or the bleak (and wet) vision of the post-apocalyptic world were probably not attractive enough, and despite the huge sets and the multitude of extras, much of the film is devoted to the Big Blue. The ocean is beautiful, no doubt about that, but it is a bit monotonous for nearly two and a half hours. And the happy ending is not so happy either. Our heroes do discover the coveted land, but the Mariner, being half water creature, gets sick of it, so he leaves his prospective family on the shore, and returns to the sea, his real home.The plot and the Mariner's character are, however, decently developed. (The weakest point is the illogical final confrontation, as the one person our hero truly jeopardises there is the child he tries to save.) The costumes made of fish scales look great (the Mariner's earrings are especially memorable), and Dennis Hopper in the role of the main antagonist is as wacky as always. Life after the great flood, as presented in the movie, seems more or less plausible, and there are no major problems with the dramatic structure or the pacing of the film either. It just doesn't grab you — probably because it really is nothing more than Mad Max 2 on water.