FROM THE COLLECTION! - 'Waterworld' (1995)

So, how did one film controversially become the most expensive movie of the time? Well, surprisingly, the script had its start in the low budget world. Famed low-budget producer Roger Corman had come across some money in 1986 and tasked screenwriter Peter Rader to make a “Mad Max” rip-off film as they were cheap to make.

Rader wanted to put a unique spin on the dystopian genre and thought, “What about ‘Mad Max’ on water!?” After being told that would be too expensive a movie to make, he moved forward with writing it anyway. He ended up shelving the movie for a few years only to pull it out when producer Lawrence Gordon told him that Largo could make the movie for $65 million and it would be distributed by Universal Pictures.

Eventually, Rader learned that actor Kevin Costner had come across the script and was interested in starring in the movie. This meant that the production was going to be way more expensive and Universal completely took over control of the movie’s production and distribution.

After Costner signed on, he had only one condition. He wanted Kevin Reynolds, a director whom he had previously worked with on “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” to direct the movie. At first, Reynolds said he wasn’t interested as he and Costner had creative differences on “Robin Hood”, but after having a meeting at a hotel that was set up by Gordon, the two agreed to work together again.

Kevin Costner plays The Mariner in 1995's "Waterworld".

Reynolds’ first decision was to call Steven Spielberg who had directed “Jaws” on the ocean. When he told the famed director that he was planning to shoot on the ocean, Spielberg only told him one thing: DON’T SHOOT ON THE WATER!

That could have been sage advice, but Reynolds carried on anyway with the idea to shoot the movie mostly on the open seas. There’s only one problem that Spielberg had found out twenty years prior: the ocean doesn’t care what your shooting schedule is. This meant that the movie went over budget and over schedule.

At the time, this hit the press and they stomped on the opportunity to write negative articles about the movie and its ballooning budget. But the question was, how accurate were these articles? In reality, there was a healthy dose of truthful and exaggerated articles.

Reynolds actually recalled how he wanted to get a shot on one of the ships with two cameramen up on a tall mast. When he realized that the shot would be too dangerous due to weather conditions, they cancelled the shot. The next day, a reporter called and asked about the two cameramen that had been killed the day before, much to Reynolds’ surprise, and it took the director awhile to convince them that no one had died.

Dennis Hopper plays the Deacon in "Waterworld".

While the production was long and the budget did balloon, it wasn’t quite as bad at the end of the day as the reports were making it out to be. Unfortunately, the deed was done and the negative reporting did impact people’s decision to go see the movie.

At the end of the day, the movie made $264 million against a $175 million budget. It was not, as is to be believed, a box office flop as it made even more money on the home video market. However, the box office take was definitely well below what was expected of the movie and it was considered a box office disappointment.

Now, 31 years later, with the troubled production behind it and the luxury of time, the movie has become something of a cult hit. An oddity from the 1990s that some remember fondly while others still remember the troubled production. Hell, I even had a friend just the other day tell me she didn’t watch the movie because of the negative reports of its production.

I first saw the movie back when it was initially released on home video with my dad. I remembered enjoying the movie while dad kind of had a more lukewarm response. I do remember him briefly bringing up the massive budget of the movie and, yes, for some reason that had already soured him on the movie before he even saw it.

The Mariner, Helen, and Enola spot something in the distance in "Waterworld".

To be fair, even though I enjoyed it, I quickly moved on to other movies and kind of forgot about “Waterworld”. It was only a few years ago when I came across some articles talking about how the movie was actually quite good and probably deserved a reappraisal. I bought the film digitally as it was one sale and gave it a second go and I really enjoyed it, probably more than the first time.

So, I’ve decided to give the film a third viewing. Is the movie perfect? No, it is not, but it is worth anyone’s time who is a fan of high-concept 1990s action films. It’s one of the better dystopian pictures out there even in spite of an admittedly silly premise.

The movie sets up that the polar ice caps have melted and the entire world is submerged underwater. This is already a scientific conceit considering that this couldn’t happen in the real world as there is not enough water to cover everything up. Still, with the plot established, we are introduced to a world where our characters live on their ships and there are ramshackle cities that float on the waves of the ocean.

Our main character is the Mariner, a loner played by Costner that is your typical antihero. He’s in full survival mode, quiet, and doesn’t care to help anyone but himself. He eventually comes across a massive city called the Atoll and he meets both Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and Enola (Tina Majorino) and Enola has a secret.

The Mariner prepares to trade in "Waterworld".

Tattooed on her back is the apparent location of the mythical “Dryland”, the only land that is still around on the planet. Of course, when others learn of this, they want to get to Enola and reach Dryland first. Of the people chasing Enola, Helen, and the Mariner, the sinister Deacon (Dennis Hopper), the leader of a gang known as the Smokers, is the worst.

Hopper plays Deacon as a truly sinister black hat character. In the ‘90s, Hopper made for a fantastic villain and that’s no different here as well. Every good film needs a good antagonist and Hopper definitely provided that on that front.

Costner is also great as the Mariner and plays the character as a Mad Max/Man with No Name type character. At both times, you want to know more about the character but you also don’t want the mysteriousness of the character to be fully revealed as well.

Now, before I get to the good stuff about the movie’s production, I’ll go ahead and make note of a few blemishes on the movie. First off, it doesn’t try to move the needle on the dystopian film formula, so if these are not your kind of movies, this one won’t change your mind.

In addition to that, there are plenty of special-effects that have that good ole fashioned 1990s aging going on. In particular, the movie does contain some CGI and this was the early days and you can definitely tell. However, the filmmakers were smart as they filmed most of the movie practically and this is where the movie shines.

The practical effects hold up exceptionally well and give you some pretty spectacular action sequences. Yes, the movie went over budget, but the money is on the screen. There is something about tangible special-effects that I feel, more times than not, win out over CGI effects.

The truth is that this movie was shot in the foot by journalists who were hellbent on sensationalizing this movie’s budget and production. No, the movie is not perfect and it can definitely be classified as “Mad Max” on water, but the performances are solid, the effects are great for the most part, and the story is fun to watch.

If you’ve never given “Waterworld” a chance because of its seemingly troubled production or you’ve just never seen it before, I say give it a shot. I think you may just be surprised by what you find.