Kevin Costner’s Waterworld is a divisive movie whose reputation, much like the sea itself, has ebbed and flowed over these past 30 years. As the then-most-expensive movie of all time, there was a lot riding on this epic post-apocalyptic sci-fi, and while it initially sank under a tidal wave of critical scorn, it later resurfaced as a cult favorite.
While Costner was riding the wave of success from his Best Picture-winning directorial debut, Dances with Wolves, Waterworld failed to meet the lofty expectations of critics and was ridiculed for its story, characters, and performances. With all this history in mind, many have praised Waterworld as an underrated classic, but I can’t help but have mixed feelings about its reevaluation.
Waterworld Was A Critical Misfire At The Time, But Underwent A Reevaluation
It Was Dismissed As A Mad Max Rip-Off
The response to Waterworld was tepid, and while everyone could agree its action sequences and grand spectacle were ambitious, this post-apocalyptic story set in a future where the ice caps have completely melted and the remnants of humanity live on floating structures left a lot to be desired.
Waterworld’s production budget of $175 million (via The Numbers) was unheard of at the time, and despite grossing $264 million at the box office, the film was unable to recoup its costs and only became profitable later due to home video sales.
With Costner as a nameless drifter credited as The Mariner, this mutated man was revealed to have gills and webbed feet that have adapted to the hardships of this oceanic world. Although the concept was intriguing, critics at the time felt it was lacking, and its plot was overly derivative of Mad Max, with its desert setting traded for water.
Despite initial critical backlash, Waterworld’s reputation grew in stature as the decades pᴀssed and audiences rediscovered this big-budget oddity and came to appreciate its bold worldbuilding, impressive practical effects, and unapologetic ambition. The film slowly started to be reappraised, and audiences felt they had been too harsh on Waterworld at the time.
Waterworld Really Is A Bad Movie – I Can’t Pretend Otherwise
Retrospective Reviews Have Given It Too Much Credit
Looking back on Waterworld three decades since its release, the harsh truth is that the movie is a total mess. The negative response that critics had to the film back in 1995 remains relevant, as its weak characterization, derivative narrative, and blatant thievery from George Miller’s Mad Max franchise are too much to forgive.
While Dennis Hopper’s villainous portrayal of The Deacon, the leader of the Smokers, injects some manic energy into Waterworld, he ultimately feels like a watered-down Mad Max reject who never made the cut. With paper-thin motivations of trying to abduct a child and make it to the mythic Dryland, his portrayal has little depth beyond cartoonish evil and dry one-liners.
The plot of Waterworld feels like it’s taken the core tenets of Mad Max and taken them into absolutely absurd territory, but the trouble with this is that the film is almost entirely humorless. Instead of embracing its campy concept, Waterworld has a self-serious tone that just doesn’t fit the material.
A Waterworld sequel TV series was announced in 2021 with Predator: Badlands director Dan Trachtenberg attached. However, Trachtenberg later told Collider that the announcement was premature and the project never got off the ground.
Countless viewers will call Waterworld underrated, a cult classic, or ahead of its time, but the truth is that it’s a disappointing release with some bright spots throughout. The visuals were impressive, I can’t deny that, and critics may have been too harsh on it at the time, but it’s also not the forgotten masterpiece some try to paint it as.
Has Nostalgia Pushed The Praise For Waterworld Too Far?
Rose-Tinted Glᴀsses Means People Ignore Its Faults
Nostalgia is powerful, and calling Waterworld a misunderstood masterpiece is a more appealing narrative than admitting it’s still flawed. It’s great that new audiences are finding things to enjoy, but that’s what being a cult classic is all about: embracing the positives in a film that the broader public doesn’t really care for.
There’s a tendency to try and reframe the negative response to Waterworld as totally uncalled for, but this viewpoint is mostly coming from people who haven’t rewatched the film recently and don’t have its clunky pacing, underdeveloped characters, and meandering narrative fresh in their minds. Go back and revisit Waterworld, and you’ll see it’s definitely a slog at times.
But that isn’t to say that the ambition of Waterworld isn’t incredible, and I can also see why so many people sing its praises. As a relic of an era where Hollywood would take big swings on original ideas, the fact that this movie was greenlit without a recognizable IP backing it up is unimaginable in today’s cinema landscape.
Waterworld was a fascinating failure, and while I don’t care for the film from a storytelling perspective, I’ve got to admire its boldness. The truth is, Waterworld isn’t the complete disaster critics made it out to be at the time, but it’s also not a hidden gem waiting to be discovered at the bottom of the ocean.
Sources: The Numbers, Collider
