"Waterworld" promised so much but delivered so little, what was meant to be one of Hollywood's continuing big blockbusters turned out to be a disappointing flop, some have described it as Mad Max on water, only "Waterworld" isn't a patch on those films. Yes there were positive points to be taken from the film, the action sequences were very impressive, minimal if any special effects were used, instead the film relied on old school techniques to captivate its audience, something that was becoming increasingly rare in this age of film making. The acting was uninspiring, from an actor the caliber of Kevin Costner I was expected much more as Costner is capable of much stronger performances, this was not one of his finest films. The star I was most impressed with was Dennis Hopper, he played the role of the villain, Deacon, leader of the Smokers cult brilliantly, animated and fantastical the guy was like something lifted straight from a cartoon; alas the rest of the supporting cast appeared lackluster and somewhat amateurish, Jeanne Tripplehorn is a relative unknown and you can understand why watching her weak performance as Helen. It promised to dazzle, promised to keep you enthralled, but the film never seemed to get out of second gear..., it had mountains of potential with its eye watering budget, but failed miserably in its execution; the ending left the door open to a potential sequel, and it looked as though the producers were indeed planning a sequel, but a second part failed to materialize largely in part due to a poor box office performance and negative backlash from fans and critics alike. "Waterworld" isn't necessary a bad film, but with all the hype and eager expectation weighing it down, it just grossly disappoints, nothing wrong with giving it a watch, just keep your hopes to a minimum.

I recently watched this movie again after seeing it as a kid.What appeals to me are the fine attention to details and things that actually make sense logically - something what lacks in soooo many of the modern sci-fi flicks.It's well thought out and delivered, I was thoroughly enjoying this movie as a die-hard Sci-Fi watcher, I believe it to be better than 90% of the modern post-apocalyptic movies.Give it a shot, I do not get the prejudice of people when it comes to this movie, it's immersive and enjoyable because it does not break your immersion with stupid logic-holes or over-done CGI.

I really never got why this film was slated the way it was. I've just sat through 2 hours of Mad Max Fury Road which got good reviews and isn't half as good as this. The story is believable, the effects good and the pace of the film is excellent. This is really a mad max on wheels minus some of the real grit and gore. Saying that it's an enjoyable film. It is Hollywood No debating and doesn't have real depth but what really do you want from an action movie? I've always thought this was a good film albeit a little cheesy. Over the past 37 years I have realised the critics know squat! They rate films because they think they will be noticed for rating off the cuff and small budget films. If you want to be entertained for a few hours you could do a lot worse. A solid 7.5/10.

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.