Waterworld
User Score
7.1 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 30 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 22 out of 30
  2. Mixed: 6 out of 30
  3. Negative: 2 out of 30

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  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).… Expand
  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.… Expand
  3. groundfisher
    Jun 8, 2005
    6
    This movie starts off well, establishing a unique world, and the roles people occupy, their concerns, desires, and fears. I hoped the movie would go on to explore the world and the people within it by following Costner and whatever he encounters and his apparent, constant struggle to make a life for himself. And to see what lives other people have carved out for themselves. Unfortunately, the movie dwindles into a bit of a love story and an action-hero movie. Costner isn't bad as a surly drifter. The bad guys are all comic book. I thought the movie had potential and is certainly better than its reputation.… Expand
  4. StevenC.
    Oct 28, 2002
    7
    A lot better than you've heard. A neat no-brainer movie; a little overlong, but it's ultimately saved by Hopper.
  5. Stoneblue
    Feb 1, 2005
    9
    I thought it was better darn GOOD. I can't wait until the extended version is available on DVD. Like the Mad Max epics, it's a move I enjoy watching over & over again.
  6. PatC.
    Dec 19, 2003
    4
    Caution: This film contains Costner.
  7. YoonMinC.
    Sep 28, 2003
    6
    It tries to be Road Warrior on the highseas but the thin plot sinks under the movie's epic ambitions. Costner as fishman is lackluster but Dennis Hopper's villainous role is a true riot and almost saves the movie. The bratty kid's repartee with Costner and Hopper are priceless.

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
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
  1. 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.
    Read full review
  2. Chicago Reader
    Reviewed by: Jonathan Rosenbaum
    30
    This movie feels like it was made by a bank rather than a person.
    Read full review
  3. 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.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »