Waterworld

The theme is certainly impressive and the atmosphere of the post-apocalyptic water world is sympathetically exotic... What kills the film are terribly cheap replicas, terribly cheap action scenes and sometimes very cheap tricks. However, the expedition is generous and here and there, everything goes the way it is supposed to. Kevin is decent in the role of the amphibious vagabond, but the sweet-romantic rebirth of his personality really belongs somewhere in the B-movie category. If it weren't for the budget, this film would firmly belong there, but from a certain point of view it's actually quite an interesting spectacle. But the film truly is naive. (13/08/2007)

The second collaboration between Kevin Reynolds and Kevin Costner didn't receive as much recognition as the first one (Robin Hood), but it's not completely bad. The screenplay is inventive, and the idea of a flooded world is pleasantly mysterious. The discovery of dryland is thrilling, and Costner is absolutely perfect in his role of a sea wolf. The action sequences are incredibly well-directed, and the overall dynamics of the film are more than good. Perhaps the only downside is the excessively explosive ending with several typical heroically awkward moments, but it can be overlooked. The underwater scene is fantastically chilling, as are the final five minutes. Although this film, which cost 175 million dollars, didn't show us anything groundbreaking, it is a relatively interesting and inventive Hollywood blockbuster, where I am willing to forgive some of the excesses. (28/05/2006)

I am ultimately ruthlessly reducing my original two stars to one. It's not that it's an entirely catastrophic disaster, but generally, I incline more toward clever movies and Waterworld unequivocally belongs to the second category. If it had been possible to maintain such a level of self-irony as the devilishly exaggerating Dennis Hopper, who was evidently enjoying himself, I would have been much more generous because then it would have been an entertaining and stylish rubbish, but Kevin Costner evidently took it too seriously for the mess he actually created. For those who just want to relax with the film, who are after some action and spectacle, it doesn't have to be a bad choice at all and they can comfortably add two stars. Overall impression: 25%. (21/12/2016)

Not bad at all. Actually, Waterworld is a nice exotic adventure with an excellent subject. If it had been directed by Steven Spielberg, it could have been an unforgettable contribution to the genre. But even so, despite the spasmodic final third, it’s still a bombastically presented and rather intelligent Hollywood blockbuster that, unlike many others, I can watch again and again, and never get bored or irritated. And Kevin Costner fits it perfectly! (04/01/2003)

The idea is praiseworthy and the execution is not bad at all. A distant future, the whole world covered in water, a band of nasty pirates led by Dennis Hopper on one side and a lonely, distrustful Kevin Costner on the other... Could you ask for more? Yes, of course. First of all, the film would have benefited from a significantly shorter runtime. In this way, it only moves towards its already predictable conclusion, sometimes dragging at times, and the impressive action scenes are often separated by uninteresting interludes. And then there's that damn last act that takes an unnecessary detour to rescue a kidnapped little girl. If it wasn’t for this storyline, or rather, if it was a purely male adventure, it would have been an absolute hit that even Bay or Emmerich would have looked at with undisguised envy. Unfortunately, the final part won't change, so I can call at least the first 90 minutes great entertainment that I will always remember fondly. (26/06/2012)