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
Watch On
  1. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    90
    A pretty damn good summer movie.
  2. 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.
  3. 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]
  4. Costner's surfer-bum affectlessness works here; he turns the Mariner into the world's most jaded lifeguard.
  5. 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.
  6. If the story seems a little waterlogged, it's still big, loud, and fun to watch.
  7. 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. 63
    A decent futuristic action picture with some great sets, some intriguing ideas, and a few images that will stay with me.
User Score
3.8

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 107 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 11
  2. Negative: 2 out of 11
  1. 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 forWelcome 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 »
  2. 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'tBefore 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 »
  3. [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 200 200 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 »