Directed by Kevin ReynoldsWritten by Peter Rader, David Twohy★ Kevin Costner
Am I the first one to use the word „cool“ about Kevin Costner’s mainstream 90s blockbuster? Surely not. Still, I feel somewhat split describing this film with a positive adjective. The best way to describe Waterworld would perhaps be: hybrid. Hybrid, as in „Not really good. Not really bad.“, quoting my new official rating system. We can see it the other way around too; there are good things about Waterworld, and there are bad things about it.
The good thing – the cool thing – is the story. A dystopian future in which the world is flooded by water and humans try to survive in small self-built islands, now this is what I call a bingo. Add to that Kevin Costner, whom I (almost) always like, and some really cool props like rustic boats and ships, a lot of junky metal and stuff, and fashion somewhere between Indiana Jones and Pirates of the Caribean. Therefore, as a part of the series „Cool Films with Ships and Boats“, Waterworld definitely deserves the adjective „cool“.
But there are also things about Waterworld that aren’t so cool. Let’s start with my main concern; the background music. It’s sort of the equivalent of the mad-driving women’s choir in (mostly) 90s Bollywood films. I call it „strings-orchestra-gone-mad“, the Hollywood version that is. You know it from – guess what – 90s Hollywood films. It mostly appears in an „intense“ scene, its favorite feeling to underline being the heroism of the main character(s). This may not be irritating as hell in every scene (it also depends on the musical theme and the sound intensity), but what I usually think is that the scene would have worked so much better with a different stylistic choice.The strings-orchestra-gone-mad reaches its maximum point of irritatingness in the ending of this film, which is one of the reasons why I wasn’t very pleased with that scene. What else wasn’t cool about Waterworld? Well, there are so many things... most of the supporting actors and their roles (especially the villains), much of the dialog – a lot of things.
Concludingly (this isn’t a long review), I’d say that Waterworld wasn’t inventive enough, despite its sci-fi content, to get all of my attention. But it’s still a film that I’m glad I’ve seen, mainly because of the topic that interests me much. So it’s really up to you if you are willing to spend your time on this.
The final word:
