Netflix Deep Cut: Waterworld

Nothings that great in Waterworld

I want you to imagine something for me. Close your eyes for a second (you know, metaphorically) and imagine its 1995. The sound of Shaggy's salacious hit Bombastic echoes through your mind as you try and log onto the internet in less than 7 hours with your trusty PC in THAT shade of beige, so you can get into a chatroom and finally settle the debate of Blur VS Oasis. Whilst waiting for the modem to stop making such ear shredding noises, you decide to take in a movie. Eschewing your collection of VHS, you head to the nearest cinema. You see showings for Seven, Before Sunrise, Juamnji. And something else. Something much, much lamer.

Waterworld is one of the more famous cinematic follies, being the most expensive film ever made upon its release (and now sits as the 12^th most expensive) and bombing at the box office, making only $88 Million at the box office. Now that doesn't sound too bad, but the films budget was $175 Million. And when you take a look into the film's production, that budget starts to make sense. Filming took place in a giant saltwater enclosure just off the coast of Hawaii with giant floating sets full of working pulleys and generators and a fleet of Jetskis and boats, many of which were destroyed in a Hurricane a la Apocalypse Now. Also the director Kevin Reynolds bailed out part way through production after Kevin Costner kept playing back seat director.

If you asked me to describe the plot of Waterworld, it'd take me one sentence: Mad Max, but in boats. A lone wanderer finds a community in a post apocalyptic world and does battle against a disfigured Warlord, before leading a small group to a promised land before leaving. The only real difference this time is that instead of there not being enough water, there's way too much. It has the same tonality, same aesthetics and the same message of “Climate Change and greed are bad”. But whilst Mad Max has cool cars and guns, Waterworld has boats. Now to be fair, all the boats and sets are monumental and rich with detail and lots of moving parts. A lot of screen time is spent with people frantically turning pulleys and flipping levers to make things fly out of other things. But mechanical shenanigans don't compensate for bland characters giving a bland performance.

I can't honestly remember any character names aside from Mariner, and thats not even an actual name. And Costner doesn't so much phone it in as send it via snail mail. He just mopes around being as bland as a glass of water. And he has gills for some reason, which only occasionally factors into the story so it's basically pointless. But he gets roped into a quest to find the last patch of dry land on earth by annoying woman Helen, played by Jeanne Tripplehorn, and annoying child Enola, played by Tina Majorino. And they spend the whole movie perused by the one saving grace of the cast in the form of The Deacon played by Dennis Hopper. The Deacon is a bald-headed, one eyed, oil loving warlord with a band of jet ski mounted brigands who rocks into a scene and steals it every single time. He also lives aboard the wreck of the Exxon Valdez and worships Joesph Hazelwood as a saint.

So, for the uninitiated, the Exxon Valdez was an American oil tanker that ran aground off the coast of Alaska in 1989, spilling 37000 tonnes of oil into the pacific. Hazelwood, the ship's captain, was apparently drunk off his arse away from the helm during the incident. The event has come to be considered the most damaging oil spill in history, with the amount of oil spilled bested only by the BP oil spill in 2010. So when The Deacon starts talking about “The Dez” and “Saint Joe”, it becomes blatantly obvious that subtlety was not a word the writers had ever heard of, let alone try and incorporate into their screenplays.

So, now to the question of the hour, should Waterworld be on Netflix? It's message of “Don't screw up the environment” is timeless but poorly delivered, it's action scenes are dull and repetitive and it's about as nuanced as a brick through a window. The sets, props and costumes are all still very impressive and hold up well even by modern standards, but you could just look at pictures of them to get the same experience. It's not a bad movie, but it is a boring and uninspired one. So to answer the question, no Waterworld shouldn't be on Netflix. But the stunt show they have at Universal resorts can stay because that actually looks pretty cool and has better stunt work, and no Kevin Costner to boot!