In Defense of Waterworld

I think there is a lot to say about the 1995 Kevin Costner epic Waterworld. Most of the things that come to mind involve equating the typical viewing experience to watching a bloodhound take a shit, it's disgusting, but there's nothing more satisfying than watching it plop down and steam. I have to start off by saying that by no means is this a good film, it is however, a movie I absolutely love watching. Just think about the main aspects of this film. The hero has gills and wears ski boots. The villain inexplicably hates sails and leads a band of nicotine crazed goons called "smokers." And if you wanna get nerdy about it: the human race has managed to live through a major extinction event and long enough for not only sea life to drastically evolve but also for humans to adapt to the new Waterworld. This means that at a minimum this movie has to take place a thousand years after the polar icecaps melted and flooded the world. How can you not love the sheer ballsiness of filmmakers ready to make this movie.

Let's take a step back and look at who was involved in the making of this film. Director Kevin Reynolds has a good history with Kevin Costner, he also directed Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves which was considered by most to be a success if not critically then definitely financially. Although credited as director for Waterworld, Kevin Costner pretty much took over most of the production and had a hand in much of the direction of this film. At first glance that has to be a good thing right? Kevin Costner directed Dances with Wolves and that movie was bad ass. But there is one critical difference between both of those films and that lies in overall execution and script. While Dances with Wolves has an Oscar winning screenplay (Michael Blake, who also wrote the novel) Waterworld has a screenplay that is only really useful as scratchy, ass- bleeding toilet paper. The sad part for Kevin Costner though is that this film is the "jumping the shark" moment of his career-- literally-- there is a moment where he swims around in the water and jumps out into the air with his superhuman fish-man strength. Kevin Costner didn't jump the shark, he was the shark, if you can't find comedy and enjoyment in a movie that ridiculous then I feel bad for you.

But quality is not the actual point here. Of course, a movie should be high quality and a movie should be well made but does a lack of all these things make a film unwatchable? Waterworld's action sequences are still quite brilliant and there are many inherent sight gags re: ski boots, eating dirt, hitting women with oars. And let's not forget the wonderful Dennis Hopper who has a knack for making shit dialogue sound like pure gold. Oh and hey guess what? James Newton Howard did the music and he has eight Oscar nominations on his resume. Waterworld is probably a film that is the closest to being as bad as it is good and that is probably its major flaw. Of all the things about this movie that are great: action, music, sets, plot there are just as many things about it that are awful: writing, acting, directing, gills. This film is a true spectacle comparable to the Spiderman: Turn off the Dark Broadway show, there are big stunts crazy set pieces, loads of hype, but nothing else-- the only difference is that Spiderman will make A LOT of money.

I propose that after all these years we end the hatred of this film. Look at it for what it is: a spectacle and a landmark in the history of film where producers were starting to think that if a movie was big and epic then nothing else mattered. Which if you look at many of the summer films of the last few years is STILL something Hollywood is banking on see: Transformers, Clash of the Titans, and almost anything else that came out in fake "3-D." Waterworld may have lost more money than our government is losing every year paying for wars-- approx 343 bajillion dollars --but that does not mean it's not super fun, super ridiculous and totally worth watching if not just to see cyclops Dennis Hopper yelling at his "smokers" aka aquatic band of Mad Max rejects. If you're still not convinced at least respect Costner for the fact that after all these years he's still battling the smokers-- while filming Waterworld he began investing into research on a device that cleans up oil spills. Sounds like there was something good beyond the horizons of Waterworld.