WATERWORLD: Still Amazing After 30 Years Since Its Premiere

In the 1990s, probably few people took seriously the idea that forms the basis of Waterworld. Its absurdity was all too visible, something the creators didn’t really try to hide. However, today, almost thirty years after the premiere of Kevin Reynolds’ film, the loud questioning of whether our world faces destruction due to global warming and the resulting melting of glaciers, or perhaps another eco-catastrophe, is no longer such a foolish thought.

It might not concern us, but what about the generation of our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren? How much longer will the cinematic post-apocalypse amuse us, and when will the moment come when we start taking its messages seriously? As one can infer from what the protagonists of Waterworld make us understand, the events in which they participate take place in a very distant, difficult-to-define future. The land-based civilization has already been forgotten and referred to as ancient. People have lived on water for so long that they have forgotten what it’s like when nothing sways, they have forgotten what dry land is — the concept has passed into the realm of legends. Some have even managed to evolve and gain the ability to breathe and move efficiently underwater. One of these people is the main character of our story.

Who is the Mariner? He is a sort of superman. He is also, much like Max Rockatansky, a typical egoist of the future. An individual fully focused on his strength and resourcefulness, seeing in himself, his skills, and his resilience the only chance for survival. He is an outsider living on the fringes of society, long having forgotten what bonds are, especially bonds with women. He does not understand the value of love or friendship. He is an individual in whom everything changes the moment he meets a small girl. The radiance coming from her finally illuminates the darkness of his soul.

Waterworld is one of those science fiction films that I genuinely adore. It is also one of those science fiction films whose financial failure I have never been able to understand, just as I have never been able to grasp the alleged worthlessness attributed to it. How wonderful it was to experience Reynolds’ work in a time of freedom of reception, freedom of interpretation. Today, before the film even properly hits theaters, one can already learn how many millions the producers have lost because of it, how bad it turned out to be, etc. And all of this because of pre-release reviews (or rather their sum, from which a percentage average is derived by a certain “tomato” service), which are naturally a completely normal thing, but often contribute to the permanent labeling of films.

How much easier it was for moviegoers in the 1990s, when, without access to the internet, one grabbed whatever seemed attractive and simply watched it. And a film about a world drowned underwater with Kevin Costner in the lead role looked damn attractive!

Only years later did I start hearing about the size of the financial failure for which Universal Studios had to take responsibility. With a then astronomical budget of 175 million US dollars, the film managed to earn only around 265 million dollars, which is a rather unsatisfactory result when one considers that a spectacle of this size should at least earn twice the initial amount. However, it’s hard for me to say what the audience might not have liked and what ultimately became a splinter in the critics’ eyes. Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that they succumbed to the unfavorable atmosphere surrounding the spectacle. Negative reviews tend to highlight only slogans pointing out the script’s stupidity and the inability to emotionally engage with the characters’ fates.

It is also mentioned that the image of catastrophe that the creators wanted to depict influenced the creative process. One should also consider such production difficulties as the constant rewriting of the script, the extension of filming in extremely difficult conditions, and the not-so-easy relations with Kevin Costner, who at the time was dealing with personal problems. However, it is hard to ultimately determine how much of these difficulties is true and how much is a fabrication by the press, which systematically provided negative PR for the production. Perhaps advertising Waterworldas the most expensive film in cinema history was a shot in the foot for the creators, as, although it was a fact, it automatically increased expectations from both critics and viewers.

Maybe I am naive, maybe I associate Waterworld too much with past emotions, which is why, driven by sentiment, I can’t view it fully critically. However, this doesn’t change the fact that when I watch this film now, after all these years, it still affects me just as strongly. This somewhat crazy, unconventional, and definitely bold Cinema of New Adventure constantly amazes me with its extraordinary visual spectacle. The action is fast-paced, with good rhythm, moments of impact, and moments of stillness, all in the right proportions. The presented world — its character, plasticity, style, depth (pun not itended) — being the most important component of this story, is absolutely fascinating. It stimulates the imagination and encourages reflection on the self-destructive nature of humanity and the extraordinary significance of water — whether in the world or in our small everyday life. The measure of the uniqueness of the visual presentation is also the special effects. It’s worth adding that Waterworld is one of the last cases of the practical use of FX on such a large scale.

The main character intrigues from start to finish with his mystery, as well as the coldness and harshness emanating from him. The Mariner, played by Kevin Costner at the peak of his popularity at the time, is rather an example of an anti-hero, as his motivations are far from being a model to follow. However, he is not as corrupted as his adversary, brilliantly played by Dennis Hopper. I have the impression that this extremely charismatic performance has not been properly appreciated and usually gets lost among other performances by this outstanding actor. Waterworld also features two actresses that significantly enhance the viewing experience. I’m talking about the naturalness of Jeanne Tripplehorn, an actress who managed to show herself in a good light, only to disappear into the shadows of oblivion, and the brilliance of Tina Majorino, a young actress who faced a similar fate, as today she is more associated with her childhood roles.

Waterworld continues to surprise even after all these years. It was fresh and innovative in 1995 and remains so today. At least in my eyes. What’s not visible, perhaps can be heard. Because if someone was put off by the costumes or the set design, which, while building an incredible atmosphere, could at a push be ridiculed for pretending to be realistic, if while sailing with the protagonist through the vastness of water someone didn’t feel the atmosphere of fantastic adventure, they should at least admit that one element of Waterworld works flawlessly and it’s hard to challenge its mastery. That’s the music of James Newton Howard, which, in tandem with the imagery, works more to the film’s advantage than thousands of my words, expressing the true magic of cinema. Let yourself be carried away, let yourself be convinced.