Waterworld
Metascore
56 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 17 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 17
  2. Mixed: 8 out of 17
  3. Negative: 1 out of 17
view
per page
  1. Newsweek
    Reviewed by: David Ansen
    90
    A pretty damn good summer movie.
  2. Chicago Tribune
    Reviewed by: Michael Wilmington
    75
    Waterworld is often entertaining because it's screwy. Could even Ed Wood Jr. have come up with those cigarette-puffing villains, in a world with hardly enough dirt for a tobacco plant? [28 July 1995]
    All this critic's reviews
  3. USA Today
    Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    75
    A two hour aquatic pursuit pic with bruising stunts, fun-to-watch performances, a dozen good chortles and imposing Panavision renderings of post-apocalyptic crud, Waterworld clearly has the makings of a cult movie.
  4. ReelViews
    Reviewed by: James Berardinelli
    75
    The script doesn't do a great job with either the spiritual or the physical trek, but the spectacular action sequences occur with enough regularity that strong writing isn't necessary to keep Waterworld afloat.
  5. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Owen Gleiberman
    75
    Costner's surfer-bum affectlessness works here; he turns the Mariner into the world's most jaded lifeguard.
  6. Washington Post
    Reviewed by: Desson Thomson
    70
    If the story seems a little waterlogged, it's still big, loud, and fun to watch.
  7. Austin Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Marc Savlov
    67
    Nowhere near the Hollywood disaster that was foretold, Waterworld is a near-model summer fantasy: two hours and 21 minutes of loud, expansive fun.
  8. Chicago Sun-Times
    Reviewed by: Roger Ebert
    63
    A decent futuristic action picture with some great sets, some intriguing ideas, and a few images that will stay with me.
  9. Variety
    Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    60
    A not-bad futuristic actioner with three or four astounding sequences, an unusual hero, a nifty villain and less mythic and romantic resonance than might be desired.
  10. Christian Science Monitor
    Reviewed by: David Sterritt
    50
    At least Dennis Hopper plays the bad guy with wildness and wit. Costner's stolid hero seems a washout by comparison.
  11. San Francisco Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Mick LaSalle
    50
    It's really not bad... It's a genuine vault at greatness that misses the mark -- but survives.
  12. San Francisco Examiner
    Reviewed by: Barbara Shulgasser
    50
    Sublimely ridiculous.
  13. TV Guide
    Reviewed by: Staff (Not Credited)
    50
    Its mediocrity guarantees this lavish, soggy retread of futuristic Australian action classic "The Road Warrior" a place in the ranks of forgotten extravaganzas.
  14. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Elvis Mitchell
    50
    It lacks the coherent fantasy of truly enveloping science fiction, preferring to concentrate on flashy, isolated stunts that say more about expense than expertise. [28 July 1995]
    All this critic's reviews
  15. Washington Post
    Reviewed by: Rita Kempley
    50
    Waterworld isn't "Fishtar," but Kevin Costner's pricey, post-apocalyptic sloshbuckler isn't a seafaring classic either.
  16. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Kenneth Turan
    40
    Though Waterworld has some haunting underwater visual moments, the film's impact is weakened by flat dialogue, an overemphasis on jokeyness and a plot that, despite all those screenwriters, does not satisfactorily hold together at any number of points.
  17. Chicago Reader
    Reviewed by: Jonathan Rosenbaum
    30
    This movie feels like it was made by a bank rather than a person.

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
7.1 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 30 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 7
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 7
  3. Negative: 0 out of 7
  1. j30
    5
    Before Titanic came out, Waterworld was the most expensive film ever produced. Comparing the two is like night and day. Even though I don't particularly care for Titanic I think if once you have a commander of the screen and someone with a vision like James Cameron you're going to have substantial differences in results. Titanic full of ambition (like Waterworld), took home 11 Oscars while Waterworld was just nominated for 1 Oscar (Best Sound).… Full Review »
  2. [Anonymous]
    7
    200 million went down the drain, but not completely, as this film isn't a total disaster. However, it sure doesn't satisfy like 200 million dollar entertainment. Production design is top notch, and combined with some good special FX and sets, the money is definetaly on the screen. However, the story's off, and that's probably why the film didn't gross. After a promising battle in the beginning, albeit a little silly, once they're adrift on the mariner's ship, the film drags, and they accomplish little, whinig about who owns what. The characters don't have any depth, they just do what they do. The smokers, you don't even know why they do what they do. Outside of finding dryland, there's little focus in the plot, and ultimately the parts don't quite add up to something a 200 million dollar budget should deliver. Decent entertainment, but people would likely flock to more satisfying movies in the genre.… Full Review »
See all user reviews »