Kevin Costner's monster-budget movie is the shrimp that could have
been a shark, maintains William Russell as he previews the futuristic
film full of surprises
WATERWORLD (PG), directed by Kevin Reynolds, on general release from
tomorrow
WATER, water everywhere and not a drop to drink? Hardly, because right
at the start of Waterworld Kevin Costner gives a most interesting
display of how to transform one's urine into drinking water by means of
filtering it through a Heath Robinson contraption of glass tubes and
phials.
Interesting admittedly, but not the most appealing of images with
which to launch what turns out to be, not the disaster epic of legend,
but a thoroughly entertaining adventure set in a world drowned after the
polar ice caps have melted.
It is a case of wet, wet, wet, if ever there was, although not the one
the futurologists predict. Drought is what they foretell.
Costner plays the Mariner, an aquatic Mad Max, half-man, half-fish,
who scavenges the seabed for a living while sailing the seas in a
splendid, rusty catamaran. Earth is more precious than diamonds,
yesterday's metal artefacts are trading goods, and everyone dreams of
finding dry land.
The film's problem is not that it is terrible, but that it cost too
much -- a record #107.8m. The chances of it ever getting its money back
are low, hence the badmouthing.
The director, Kevin Reynolds, who made Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves
with Costner, has done a good job, although he and his star fell out
badly at the editing stage and the finished result may not be all he
hoped for. But good as it is, it remains a terrible waste of money
because the routine sci-fi story does not justify such vast expenditure.
Any tale set almost entirely at sea is going to be costly, but there
were other less justifiable costs and the Atoll, the hideously expensive
floating island on which the tale starts, could easily have been built
on dry land and, with the aid of computer technology, translated to the
waters, which is what eventually happened after the wretched thing sank
in 160 feet of water.
It is never adequately explained how the Mariner -- mad Max in a cod
piece rather than black leather, with gills behind his ears which
facilitate his trade, became half-man half-fish. Max was a family man
driven mad after his wife and child were killed by marauders who roamed
the post-atomic futureworld they lived in.
Costner is an enigma, and has none of Mel Gibson's self-mocking ironic
approach to such roles. Gibson always implies that ''Really it is all
utterly ridiculous, if you think about it, but don't think, just sit
back and enjoy it -- like I am''. Costner, a dull actor when miscast,
could not be funny if he tried and, clearly deadly serious, has no such
self-awareness. He is making a statement about the future, just as he
was about the American dream in Dances With Wolves. That the statement
is banal is neither here nor there. To Kevin it is a Big Thought.
Waterworld has been dubbed Kevinsgate and Kevintar, a reference to
those notorious turkeys, Heaven's Gate and Ishtar, but the comparison is
unfair. The Kevins' crime is not to have ended up with an unwatchable
film, rather, having spent enough money to build a sea elephant, they
have built only a shrimp. It is an amusing, thrilling, occasionally
astonishing shrimp, but it is never a sea elephant -- or even a small
shark.
The best things are the boats, especially the Mariner's catamaran
which is full of surprises. He has a way with a block and tackle which
allows him to soar to the top of the mast, dangle in the air, dive
umpteen feet into the ocean, produce harpoon guns out of nowhere, and
slide down the massive main-sail with the greatest of ease as he fights
the baddies in a style Douglas Fairbanks or Errol Flynn would have
admired.
The baddies, called Smokers -- pirates who ride motorised surfboards
-- are led by Deacon (Dennis Hopper at his most camp, the film's
second-best thing). A one-eyed, balding evil genius seeking dry land,
Deacon gets at least one splendid line -- ''Don't just stand there, kill
something,'' he screams at his henchmen in a moment of crisis.
He is after a map tattooed on the back of a pert little girl, Enola
(Tina Majorino), who lives on the Atoll in the care of Helen, the
obligatory bird in a bikini (Jeanne Tripplehorn). The pair escape with
the Mariner when the Atoll is sacked by Deacon and the remainder of the
film is a chase movie as he pursues them.
The plot logic is faulty, and the reason why Enola draws pictures of
dry land -- some folk memory is locked inside her head -- is never
explained. How did she get it? The map on her back is also a red herring
because when they eventually find the promised land it is by chance.
Majorino is precociously pert, but Tripplehorn makes a dull, pouting
co-ed type foil and she and Costner seem to be living in different
films. Hopper, however, has a whale of time doing what he does best --
being unashamedly outrageous.
Waterworld is fun, Waterworld is lavish, Waterworld is exciting,
Waterworld is far better than Costner's detractors have suggested, but
it remains a film which cost too much. By no means a disaster, it could
still have repercussions for Costner's career.
The amazing against-all-odds success of Dances With Wolves -- seven
Academy Awards, including best director for Costner -- transformed him
into an actor/director who thought he could do no wrong, and had the
clout to be allowed to try whatever he wanted.
The $21m taken in its first weekend at the box office is hopeful, and
there is no reason why word of mouth should prove damaging to its
prospects. But a good first weekend is often due only to curiosity, and
people are certainly curious.
The comparison to draw is with Batman Forever, which took $53m.
Waterworld must earn an awful lot more of it if Kevin is ever to be home
and dry.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article