Sometime in the future, the polar ice caps have melted and the worlds oceans and seas have covered the land. People are few and far between, living in small communities at sea or sailing from one to another as traders. All the people seek dry land.. something nobody has seen.
|Waterworld Movie(DivX)||Resolution: 592x306 px||Total Size: 540 Mb|
|Waterworld Movie(DivX)||Resolution: 592x306 px||Total Size: 528 Mb|
|Waterworld Movie(DVD)||Resolution: 720x368 px||Total Size: 531 Mb|
|Waterworld Movie(DVD)||Resolution: 720x368 px||Total Size: 520 Mb|
|Waterworld Movie(DVD)||Resolution: 720x368 px||Total Size: 504 Mb|
|Waterworld Movie(HD 720)||Resolution: 1280x696 px||Total Size: 7352 Mb|
|Waterworld Movie(iPod)||Resolution: 480x256 px||Total Size: 639 Mb||
|Waterworld Movie(HD)||Resolution: 852x464 px||Total Size: 1598 Mb||
This is a really good movie. I'm not the biggest fan of sci-fi movies, but this movie rocked my waterworld. There's loveable characters, a good storyline. It's suspenseful, and spiced with action and heroics, fun for everyone. The towns, and ships and scenery thats not composed of water are well put together, and the costumes are really neat. You'll find yourself wanting an explanation for where all the metals and materials came from in a world swallowed by water and you'll feel like you're on the boats with the people in a desperate search for the myth of dry-land.It's just a different kind of movie all together, but its fun to watch all the way. If you feel you've watched all the best movies out, but haven't seen this one yet, i reccomend trying it, its worth the two hours and nineteen minutes it takes to watch it.
This movie is so bad you expect to see Kevin Costner in it. Huge budgetexceeded by Kevin Costner's ego. Memorable scenes include:- Gas-powered jet skis waiting underwater for our hero. Hello! Internalcombustion engines need air!- An oil tanker propelled by a bunch of people with oars. Scotty, give uswarp 10!- Said oil tanker blown up using a conveniently placed and openvent.Add to that bad acting, bad directing, bad editing and you have one of theworst films ever. Almost makes you want to see Robin Hood or Dances WithCows.
This is my favorite movie of all time, and I love movies. I would pay a $100 for a blu-ray with the extended version.
SPOILERS There are certain films which will go down in history asmistakes. Films like 'Freddy Got Fingered' which are so unbelievablybad that you'd rather cut your genitals off with a rusty bread knife.Or films which have so much money put into them, that everyone thenhits the roof when the film just isn't that good. The perfect exampleof this later case is 'Waterworld'. Starring Kevin Costner,'Waterworld' has gone down as one of the most expensive mistakes of alltime. It cost a fortune, and it delivered little in return. When peoplecondemn it though, this fiscal aspect often negatively influences thosecomments. 'Waterworld' is a mess, there's little point denying that,but at times it is an entertaining mess. Partly saved by a hammed upperformance by Dennis Hopper, it is one of those films that you wouldnever dream of owning, but you'd happily sit and watch if it were ontelevision.In the future, the world has flooded. With dry land now a myth, peoplelive out their lives either as drifters or as part of a smallcommunity. One such drifter is the Mariner (Costner). When he findshimself in the company of Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and themysteriously tattooed Enola (Tina Majorino), the Mariner finds that heis being chased by the pirate like 'Smokers' and their leader Deacon(Hopper).Brought up to date from the start, the opening of the film suitablyinforms us of the geographic state of the world. It is at this pointthough that we are brought speeding down to the water and straight intothe action. Introduced to Costner's moody and rather annoying Mariner,we never really achieve the entertainment level of watching the worldflood at the beginning. Whether it's the dumb humour, the occasionalextreme violence, or the childish interaction between Costner andMajorino, the film never really evolves into any special.Ironic when talking about a film set entirely on a water based planet,many of the typical comments you could use are of a distinctive earthynature. Whether you state that it never really breaks any ground, or itdigs itself into a hole, so many lines are made redundant through thegeneral situation of the story. In itself this is a shame, mainlybecause if your going to review such a mediocre film, the least youcould do is sprout a list of ironic puns.If there is to be one saving grace for 'Waterworld' it is going to beyour over the top, daft bad guy, and whilst Dennis Hopper is neverquite the bad guy that you want him to be, he does provide you with theoccasional piece of comedy worthy of mention. Hopper over actsthroughout the entire film, and he makes no excuses for this. The actoris there to have fun, and who can blame him. He pushes the barrierbetween daft and pointless, but he never quite passes it. He isn'tgiven a well written character, and this is a disappointment, butHopper himself is a small comfort in this mediocre and turgid affair.'Waterworld' was a financial disaster, and more often than not this isused as an excuse to hate it. This is incredibly unfair. The film is amediocre and often pointless event which never really looks like it hasspent the money it is meant to have. Mostly thanks to the acting ofDennis Hopper in an extremely over played bad guy role though, the filmdoes retain a little dignity and can be occasionally entertaining. It'snot a film you'd dream of looking for in a shop, but you can't help butwatch it when it features on television. Distinctively average.
I cant even believe that this movie is rated as one of the worstmovies, because it really isn't. The atmosphere, music, props, sets isall wonderful.If this movie was so bad, then why is it, or was one of the highestgrossing movies ever on home video? Many years ago, i read it grossedover $500 million on home video since its release. For that reason, italso became one of the early releases on the HD-DVD format. I havenever seen the much longer director's cut, but Universal should releaseit as it most likely would push a few copies looking at how popularthis movie was at home. The recent Dredd movie flopped at US cinema's,and it still became #1 seller at Amazon USA. It shows that a lot ofpeople waits for the home video release instead of watching them atcinema.
This movie plays a lot like a Mad Max movie. Only in this one the futureworld is entirely covered in water. Though I liked The Road Warrior more,this one was pretty good. I always like movies at sea, and you get thathere. The story has this man who has gills going into a port to trade somegoods. While there it is discovered he has gills so they try to get him anddo. They plan on killing him. Fortunately, a gang who smokes and uses gaspowered vehicles attacks and a woman and girl free the gill man (Costner)and they get away. There is apparently a map on the girls back that givesdirections to dry land and the rest of the film is them trying to find itand trying to rescue the girl who gets captured by the gang. Not the bestflick in the world, but it does have some memorable sets and a lot of water. Though I highly doubt that if the polar ice caps melted the entire worldexcept on piece would be covered in water.
Critics demolished "Waterworld" in Argentina too but honestly I can'tunderstand why. This is not a great film and perhaps not even a reallygood one, but in fact it doesn't lack some sort of originality as asci-fi product in a post apocalyptic time. I don't think I would see"Waterworld" often or even twice, but it's worth at least one viewingin my opinion.The film is too long and has many rhythm blanks but it has some goodmoments too (the underwater tour provided by Costner to Tripplehornthrough the once powerful and now sunk city, the destruction of the bigtanker in which the Deacon has established his headquarters, the actionsequences acceptably handled. Kevin Costner might not be the rightchoice to play the mutant but he is not Steve Reeves either."Waterworld" won't make history in the movies but I've seen similar oreven worst big budget flaws ("Cleopatra", "Heaven's Gate", "RaintreeCounty") that were not as bad treated as this oneby the critics.Not a good film at all but if you're honest you can't say its acomplete disaster either. either.
Has the makings of a cult movie.
I never understood what all the nay-saying was about with this movie. Iwent to the cinema and enjoyed it, I've enjoyed it every time I watchedit on DVD and also whenever I happened to catch it on TV, so why thenegativity.People were maybe expecting another Dances with Wolves, Robin Hood, JFKor The Bodyguard? As this movie was more Sci-Fi based, Kevin Costnerwas less believable perhaps? Who knows, but the reality is, this is avery enjoyable movie with lots of different elements that make it worthwatching several times.OK, there are some fundamental flaws with the science involved. It'sbeen proved that if all the worlds ice melted, Waterworld couldn'thappen. It's also unlikely that melting would happen so suddenly anddramatically to leave mankind virtually incapable of doing somethingabout it, instead of a few pockets of life here and there among alargely dystopian society controlled by the "Deacon" And yes the ExxonValdez was renamed and it's even more unlikely that cans of Spam wouldstill be edible and cigarettes would still be smokable. As for weapons,if there was a cache of guns and ammunition in one of the cargo crateson board ship, if you mindlessly fire a four-barreled turret gun atanything it would deplete your supply of bullets fairly quick.Waterworld was designed more in the style of comic book come to life,instead of a period piece, so scientific accuracy was never going to beat the forefront of most peoples minds.Despite all the anachronisms in the film, it still holds togetherpretty well. Sure you can pick it to pieces but you can do the same forany of the Star Wars or comic book superhero movies as well. I don'trecall anyone saying that the amount of energy needed to destroy aplanet would render the Death Star useless, and somehow being bitten bya radioactive spider won't kill you but also make you practicallyinvincible is more believable than humans evolving gills on a worldthat's now all but devoid of dry land.If you've never watched this movie then it's worth giving it a go anddeciding for yourself.
I can't belive this film got such a bad rap. It was The Road Warrior on water. I'd say it's the best post-appocolypse film since the Mad Max movies.
Sorry, but this film deserves little more than a raspberry and asnicker. I am all for suspension of disbelief, but please don't insultme with such rubbish. To wit: In the time it takes for humans to evolvegills for underwater-breathing, our oil and cigarette reserves have notyet run out? With the exception of Dennis Hopper, most of the actors dotheir level best to bring this unfortunate still-born to life.(Hopper's over-the-top sado-lunacy only draws emphasis to this poorlythought-out mess.) See this film for laughs only - for truly goodfilm-making, take a gander at Costner's "Open Range" and (of course)"Dances With Wolves" .
Although this massive waterborne saga, originally, received manynegative reviews, to watch it on the small screen simply overwhelmsanyone who knows what it took to produce it. The acting is firstrate,(even Kevin Costner manages to be credible),and Jeanne Tripplehornis the right actress for the multiple emotions she must display. DennisHopper should have garnered an Oscar nomination for his over-the-toppirate. However, the real star, that steals the thunder from everyone,is the very young child actress, Tina Majorino. She is a joy to watchand has an exceptional command of the emotions and dialog required.Thegorgeous cinematography, special effects, and powerful music keepeverything moving along splendidly. It's a tragedy that Kevin Costner'senormous production efforts were so disparaged. This a a great filmthat should have received high praise.
This review is from: Waterworld (DVD) This is one of those movies which has seen its image gradually improve over the years. The huge budget made audiences expect a massive epic, but in fact a lot of the movie is quite small-scale. However, there are a number of things to like about it:The clever opening, in which the Universal logo, the earth, is used to demonstrate the change to Waterworld.The stunning ocean and Dryland views. There is some beautiful footage here for those who appreciate the majesty of nature.The contrast between the immensity of the ocean and the very small areas of human habitation- the boats, the Atoll, etc. Very well-drawn and something you don't really take in until you've seen the movie a couple of times.The Atoll battle-scene, which is amazing and, to the best of my knowledge, unique. Jet-skis, water skiers, a float plane and various homemade assault craft all attacking a floating village- the co-ordination of the stunts alone is worth watching the movie to see.Dennis Hopper in one of his most over-the-top roles as the villainous Deacon. Has there ever been an actor who played a villain with more relish than Dennis?The musical score, which is on a suitably large and lush scale for the wide shots and adds drama to the battle scenes.There are also some downsides. The pacing of the movie isn't great and although I suspect it was intentional to have slow periods to convey the unchanging nature of the ocean, there are times when you want to tell the director to get on with it. The evolutionary concept behind the Mariner having functional gills is unconvincing, to say the least; although many reviews have pointed out that there isn't enough water on earth to raise the seas to the level shown, not many people seem to find the gills strange enough to comment on. Let's just say that Darwin would have been hard-pressed to come up with an explanation of the process of natural selection which led to the Mariner!However, this is entertainment, not a science documentary. The story is OK, if not the most original in human terms; the movie is visually stunning and there's enough action to satisfy all but the most rabid of action movie fans. Worth watching and I actually found it improved on a second and third viewing as I took in more of the context of the film.
A soggy (sorry, couldn't resist) action adventure movie set in apost-apocalyptic age when the ice caps have melted and flooded theearth. Think of it as Mad Max meets the Wisconsin Dells.Actually, though it's not really very good, it's far from the disasterit was proclaimed when released. It's no worse than any number ofcheesy action spectacles, and the big sets that caused so manyproduction woes do manage to look fairly impressive. Kevin Costner isridiculous, but that's only surprising to people who hadn't alreadyseen him in "Robin Hood," and Dennis Hopper is a hoot as the crazywarlord villain.Why is it that every version of the apocalypse shows all survivinghumans wearing S&M gear? Are porn shops the only remnants of the humanrace that manage to make it to the other side of oblivion? Grade: C
WaterWorld i think is a fantastic movie to watch. This movie was made in1995, then a few years afterwards the movie was re released as a specialedition movie which contains extra footage that has never been seenbefore.I give this movie 10 out of 10.
This review is from: Waterworld (DVD) Just like 'Dances With Wolves', this movie has that epic, expansive feel to it. It takes place in a post worldwide disaster. No one can remember what happened, only that once humans were said to have lived on "dry-land". Now there are small atolls of human colonies scattered across the never ending oceans. There is also a dominant and bloodthirsty clan called the "Smokers". These greasy glutinous gang have taken up residence in an old oil tanker. And have patch-worked together a basic knowledge of the combustion engine and how to exploit it to conquer all the atolls. At the middle of all this is a little girl who bears a tattoo on her back, that is thought to be a map to the mythical dry-land. And Kevin Costner's character, the loner called the Mariner, who is evidence of evolution at work. Through a series of events, these two cross paths, and end up fighting for their lives and caught up in the search for dry-land. This is one of my favorite Costner movies. The cinematography is beautiful. The cast and acting is entertaining. I love it every time I watch it. It's definitely a post apocalypse style movie, and for some people that might be an overplayed theme. You'll either love it or hate it. If you liked his previous movies in this style, its a good bet you'll like this one. It is a cool new twist on the 80's genre apocalypse movies. I only vaguely remember those, so the theme isn't played out for me.
This review is from: Waterworld [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) Everyone seems to hate this movie, but I love it. This is one my favorite movies from childhood. I recommend this for anyone over 8 years old. It is a lot of fun, great action, great acting, cool visuals. There is one scene that is sort of sexual, she takes her clothes off, but you don't see anything and he turns down her advance so its still ok for kids I think. Anyways, great film, watch it!
Junk.This word describes the film.It doesn't know what it is.Acomedy,joke,or a thriller.There is no plot.Costner lives in lala land. Thismovies makes no sense.Exxon Valdez in waterworlds?We laughed at it all weeklong.Kevin just try to make a movie once in awhile not anEPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!
In 1968, I remember the venomous remarks from viewers of the movie "2001a Space Oyessey". What was odd was the anger of those movie-goers who didn't"get" the storyline. Time has proven what a prescient, stunning film thatwas 31 years ago, Incredible! 31 years! And now, those just born will notonly be stepping into that movie, but beyond it.Those same type reactions arise when someone gives us a dangerous visionof what could be that alters our mental map of civilization. I see the samereactions to Waterworld. For all the bright Hawiian sun it was filmed under,this was a very, very dark story.This was not a perfect movie. Parts are ingenious, and parts areludicrous. The water scenes with the Trimeran were wonderful, and thefloating colonies were somewhat believable. Then just as Costner establishedthat we were going to see something never seen before, with an importantmessage, he turned the whole movie into a car chase.One reality check for Costner was, don't use the Pacific Ocean as a movielot because you will run out of money before the Pacific runs out of storms.Also, Costner really irritated fans with off camera romantic dalliancesthat destroyed their image of his clean cut character.I'm glad it was made. It's important. Who knows, in 31 moreyears......beware!
Dystopian Pirates vs. Reluctant Hero adventure.5.9 ? That (re)confirms how completely off the mark IMDb ratings canbe. I would say this movie is more like a 7.3.Imaginative, captivating premise (irregardless of whether its actuallypossible). Decent acting. Good spectrum of characters. Big budget. Lotsof fun.Yes it's ridden with editorial flops (especially) if you watch the widescreen version. Ex. The famous scene where the bottle of scotch is getsmore full as the scene goes on (clearly some thirsty actors!). Butreally, for me, it didn't detract much from the film.