Comments on: WWTW Rewind – ‘Waterworld’ (1995)

By: Brian Swisher

Brian Swisher — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:46:05 +0000

Sorry. Not even a nude Jeanne Tripplehorn can induce me to watch “Waterworld” again…

By: cftoto

cftoto — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:38:01 +0000

I dug the first 30 minutes of Ishtar … then it lived down to its rep. Will watch it again when it hits cable

By: Chase

Chase — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:05:05 +0000

I watch it when it comes on TV from time to time, a fun story, and I love the weird dude who floats around the oil inside the Hopper’s big tanker … kind of a Ben Gunn of a future world.

Now, I encourage you to watch Ishtar again, my dad and I always liked that movie, it’s really pretty funny, honestly.

By: cftoto

cftoto — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:33:46 +0000

Exactly. The venom directed toward the film was disproportional to the film’s flaws.

By: David A.

David A. — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:28:17 +0000

Waterworld was never as bad as the critics said. Like you said, it had a lot to do with all the budget overruns and with the rest of Hollywood basically being catty about the whole thing.

I also don’t think there was very much affection for Reynolds in Hollywood. They didn’t like him from when Robin Hood came out. But, it seemed to be a personal criticism of him that went beyond just merely being a mediocre director. Being mediocre is enough for criticism and is entirely fair, but the problems with Reynolds seem to have gone beyond that.

I always thought Waterworld was OK. Not great, not terrible.

But, from the criticism you’d have thought it was that Cindy Crawford/William Baldwin movie or something.

By: Synner_man

Synner_man — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:58:21 +0000

I picked this up today and was also surprised by the lack of any real extras. Any bad blood between Costner and Reynolds seems to be gone (they did a commentary track together for “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves”), so an honest look at production shouldn’t have been out of the question.