Metascore
56

Mixed or average reviews - based on 17 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 17
  2. Negative: 1 out of 17
  1. This movie feels like it was made by a bank rather than a person.
User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 47 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 10
  2. Negative: 1 out of 10
  1. j30
    Feb 13, 2012
    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]
    Oct 29, 2005
    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 »
  3. May 27, 2014
    1
    Welcome to Waterworld, where men need to have long haircuts, women need to have short haircuts, and Kevin Costner acts like a total retard for over two hours. Full Review »