Waterworld

Ein angenehmes exotisches Abenteuer mit einem ausgezeichneten Thema. Wenn sich um die Regie Steven Spielberg gekümmert hätte, hätte Waterworld ein unvergesslicher Genre-Beitrag sein können. Der Film ist aber trotzdem (auch mit dem krampfhaften letzten Drittel) eine ziemlich intelligente Hollywood-Unterhaltung mit einer bombastischen Ausstattung, die man sich im Unterschied zu vielen anderen immer wieder anschauen kann. Der Film ist nie langweilig. Und Kevin Costner war eine perfekte Wahl! (03.01.2003)

The first two acts are great, and if the whole film was like that, I wouldn't hesitate to reach for the highest rating. But the botched ending with the "liberation" scene from the tanker completely spoils the good impression. The scene where Costner runs through the tanker and sets it on fire is very bad, and what followed, including the bungee jumping, gave me fits of laughter. Also, the over-acting Dennish Hopper wasn’t a very fortunate choice, either. (21.07.2002)

Das Thema ist sicherlich beeindruckend und ebenso die Atmosphäre der postapokalyptischen Wasserwelt wirkt auf sympathische Weise exotisch ... Was den Film regelrecht killt, sind unheimlich billige Repliken, grauenhaft billige Actionszenen und manchmal sehr billige Tricks. Im Gegenteil dazu ist das Set großzügig. Hier und dort klappt auch alles so, wie es sollte. Kevin passt die Rolle eines amphibischen Assis recht gut auf den Leib, lediglich die süßlich-romantische Wiedergeburt seiner Persönlichkeit gehört doch bereits wirklich irgendwo in die B-Movie-Kategorie. Gäbe es nicht das Budget, so würde dort dieser Film bis zum letzten Milliliter hinzugehören, aber aus einem bestimmten Blickwinkel wäre dies sicherlich ein recht interessantes Spektakel. Obwohl doch der Streifen naiv ist und ihm die Unerfahrenheit quasi durch die Flossen schimmert. (13.08.2007)

I am ultimately ruthlessly reducing my original two stars to one. It's not that it's an entirely catastrophic disaster, but generally, I incline more toward clever movies and Waterworld unequivocally belongs to the second category. If it had been possible to maintain such a level of self-irony as the devilishly exaggerating Dennis Hopper, who was evidently enjoying himself, I would have been much more generous because then it would have been an entertaining and stylish rubbish, but Kevin Costner evidently took it too seriously for the mess he actually created. For those who just want to relax with the film, who are after some action and spectacle, it doesn't have to be a bad choice at all and they can comfortably add two stars. Overall impression: 25%. (21.12.2016)

The second collaboration between Kevin Reynolds and Kevin Costner didn't receive as much recognition as the first one (Robin Hood), but it's not completely bad. The screenplay is inventive, and the idea of a flooded world is pleasantly mysterious. The discovery of dryland is thrilling, and Costner is absolutely perfect in his role of a sea wolf. The action sequences are incredibly well-directed, and the overall dynamics of the film are more than good. Perhaps the only downside is the excessively explosive ending with several typical heroically awkward moments, but it can be overlooked. The underwater scene is fantastically chilling, as are the final five minutes. Although this film, which cost 175 million dollars, didn't show us anything groundbreaking, it is a relatively interesting and inventive Hollywood blockbuster, where I am willing to forgive some of the excesses. (27.05.2006)

Postman gefällt mir zwar besser (wagen Sie es ja nicht zu sagen, dass ich pervers bin), Waterworld hat aber auch einen gewissen Zauber. Die Geschichte ist zwar stinknormal, alles wird aber durch die monumentale Ausstattung, die überwältigenden Actionszenen, den Mutanten Costner sowie den unterhaltsamen Hopper (der jedoch manchmal ein bisschen übertreibt) gerettet. Waterworld – das ist auch einer meiner Lieblingssoundtracks, die nach 1990 entstanden sind. Den Film sollte man sich in der Originalfassung anschauen – in der Synchronfassung klingen manche Dialoge, die schon in der Originalversion nicht besonders geistreich sind, fürchterlich peinlich. (23.07.2010)

The idea is praiseworthy and the execution is not bad at all. A distant future, the whole world covered in water, a band of nasty pirates led by Dennis Hopper on one side and a lonely, distrustful Kevin Costner on the other... Could you ask for more? Yes, of course. First of all, the film would have benefited from a significantly shorter runtime. In this way, it only moves towards its already predictable conclusion, sometimes dragging at times, and the impressive action scenes are often separated by uninteresting interludes. And then there's that damn last act that takes an unnecessary detour to rescue a kidnapped little girl. If it wasn’t for this storyline, or rather, if it was a purely male adventure, it would have been an absolute hit that even Bay or Emmerich would have looked at with undisguised envy. Unfortunately, the final part won't change, so I can call at least the first 90 minutes great entertainment that I will always remember fondly. (26.06.2012)

It's not such a bad movie, but it's hard to believe it cost $175 million. It's just not evident in the film, especially when it comes to the finale, where the special effects scenes are dreadful. Even though the film didn't gather as many fans, it's certainly not a downright bad film, and Kevin Costner's character is excellent. (15.03.2017)