Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Andrea Compton I attempted to watch this movie, got about 25 minutes into it. I did think to myself it was filmed similarly to Mad Max (I saw someone else say that on a review). Anyway, it is not the worst movie ever but it was just not good. The acting was so cheesy! The costumes were cheesy. And I just could not watch anymore of it after only 25 minutes! I am a Kevin Costner fan usually, but not this time.

Fluke_Skywalker Plot; In the distant future, the polar ice caps have melted, leaving continents buried under water and mankind scrambling to survive on a seemingly endless sea.Waterworld is a rather notorious movie for a number of reasons; Dubious science, massive cost overruns and the squabbling between star Kevin Costner and director Kevin Reynolds (friends who'd teamed up for the massive hit Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves four years earlier) during production. It did go on to gross over $250 million worldwide (the equivalent of $425 million today), but it still wasn't enough to offset the cost of production and distribution (though it later turned a profit thanks to home video sales). Critics destroyed it, with reviews always containing references to its troubled production. But is Waterworld the turkey its reputation claims it is? To my surprise, no. I'd seen it a few times before, but not in well over a decade, so I went in with low expectations but otherwise unsullied by any specific prejudices.Waterworld is essentially--actually rather unabashedly--a Mad Max rip-off. Replace gasoline with land and the dry desert setting with water and they're virtually indistinguishable. Strictly from a production values perspective, Waterworld is quite impressive. The sets and the menagerie of vehicles are neat, and the film itself looks great. Toss in some very impressive stunt work and the movie works pretty well on a strictly popcorn level. That's good, because I never really found the characters or their search all that compelling. Costner's quiet Mariner is an abusive jerk for much of the film, and the villainous Smokers (Named so because their vehicles belch smoke or because they literally smoke themselves, I don't know) are cartoonish to the point of removing any real threat. But thankfully the movie doesn't rest on the shoulders of its characters so much as it does the action and post-apocalyptic eye candy, and the latter is enough to keep Waterworld afloat.

Timo Reichert (I don't really think that I spoiler anything, but I just wanted to make sure)I love apocalyptic movies - I really do. It is the extreme contrast to our current reality which makes them so interesting. So this was a plus on watching "Waterworld".I've watched Waterworld for the first time about 10 years ago and whenever I think back I have a good feeling about the movie. That's why I watched it again in 2016. And boy - it didn't disappoint. The story as an apocalyptic movie is great, but the atmosphere is exceptional well done and gripping.As for the acting goes - I'm not really an expert in it even though I've watched a lot of movies in my 23 years - but I had the feeling that it was superb.But what I really liked about Waterworld is the connection between Mariner (Kevin Costner) and the little kid. Mariner who became very coldhearted, egoistic and skeptical to other humans through his ruff time on the water for many years, learns to trust and even developed feelings/emotion for other human-beings through his interaction with the little girl. He is the typical "hard shell,soft core"-man.Last but not least - "older" movies - around 1985-2005 (Lethal Weapons, Rush Hour etc etc) have this realistic feeling/vibe which I really miss on current blockbusters. They all look too much enhanced through CGI.

slightlymad22 Continuing my plan to watch every Kevin Costner movie in order, I come to Waterworld.One of the most controversial movies in KC's filmography. Simply because it had the stigma of being the most expensive movie ever produced at the time. A snip by modern standards at $175 million. Universal initially authorized a budget of $100 million, but production costs eventually ran it up to to an estimated $175 million, with KC putting $22 million of his own money into the film, just as he did with Dances With Wolves. Plot In A Paragraph: In a future where the polar ice-caps have melted and Earth is entirely submerged, The Mariner (KC) reluctantly helps a woman and a young girl try to find dry land.KC reunites with Fandango and Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves director Kevin Reynolds for what should be a slam dunk for the pair of them, but with troubled production from the off, the film was plagued by a series of cost overruns and production setbacks. The script underwent 36 different drafts which involved six different writers, including Joss Whedon who flew out to Hawaii to work on it, he later described it as "seven weeks of hell". Sets were destroyed (The Atoll actually sank too) by three hurricanes, KC, his stuntman, Jeanne Tripplehorn and Tina Majorino (who was also drunk by jellyfish repeatedly too) all nearly drowned. All of that,and then throw in leading man KC's whose marriage fell apart during filming, and when Wyatt Earp opened to empty turnstiles to become his second (third if you count The War) box office disappointment in a row, the critics were gunning for him. Writing that after great success, he was finished, and on his way out. They made out, at 40, he was an ageing gunslinger (think KC would approve of the western metaphor) hearing the footsteps of younger faster trigger men named Will Smith, Jim Carrey, Tom Hanks and Leo Dicaprio. I know i'm in the minority here along with an ever increasing circle of people who actually enjoy this very under rated movie. I don't think it's fan bias, when I say Waterworld is a thoroughly enjoyable summer popcorn flick, all the performances are good, the action set pieces are impressive and it has a good sense of atmosphere too. Whilst I always end up humming James Newton Howard's score for a while after I have watched it too. It's not perfect by any means. Locking director Reynolds out of the editing room, KC hacked it to pieces in order to accommodate the two-hour-running-time maxim imposed by the studio, so that corporate could get their investment back.I'm in the process of trying to track down a fan-edit of the film called Waterworld: Ulysses Cut, which includes all of the deleted scenes. The additional scenes tie up several loose ends left ambiguous by the theatrical release.Even with all of the above, and opening a week before guaranteed money maker Die Hard With A Vengeance, Waterworld ended the year the 12th highest grossing movie of 1995, with a domestic gross of $88 million. KC bashers should get over themselves, and start giving George Lucas what he deserves.