Title · no scrobbles indexed yet

Waterworld

The first scrobble for this title is still propagating, but a community review is already indexed below.

Reviews

Longform community posts about this title

Waterworld: A box office bomb that you really should go back and watch again@netflixr548d

I remember when Waterworld was getting marketed like mad in my youth. We were all so excited about what was at that time the most expensive movie ever made and it starred Kevin Costner, who at that point in his career seemed to be incapable of doing anything wrong.

We lined up at the theaters like good little lemmings only to be subjected to a film that was actually nowhere near as incredible as we had hoped it would be. This was in a time when streaming wasn't even something that could be conceived of and even internet reviews of stuff were something that not very many people did. I suppose that kind of worked out in the film's benefit because they enjoyed a few weeks of making big money before word got around that the film isn't very good.

The film isn't very good, yet I still think people today should go back and watch it, for the first time, or perhaps for a bit of nostalgia about the "good ol' days."

src

From the promotional materials we were provided in 1995 this movie was presented as being a "Mad Max" on the ocean and honestly, that is exactly what it is. Well it was that and a budget of $100 million, which was an absurdly high budget for that time period and it spiraled out of control to nearly $200 million once the producers found out that filming something exclusively on water is actually a lot more difficult than they had planned.

The film's producers and director Kevin Reynolds (who?) were actually warned, in a very kind way, by Steven Spielberg of all people to not film on open water because it isn't going to go like you have planned. He speaks from experience seeing as how he had a little project you may have heard of called Jaws that also went wildly over budget and was extremely frustrating for everyone involved. Do you think anyone listened to Spielberg? Nah, of course not.

[src](https://ychef.files.bbci.co.uk/624x351/p08rnlxs.jpg)

Much of the shooting was done in controlled environments that aren't actually the open sea, much like Titanic would do years later, but this was rather uncharted territory at the time and they learned very quickly that this was a crazy venture. There is some rumor that a lot of the conceptualized ideas that they had for the film had to be cut because they were already wildly over budget and the cast and crew were at their collective wit's end. The end result is a film that barely makes any sense, looks very cheap and fake at times despite having a tremendous amount of money involved in it, and invokes more eye-rolling than it does any sort of enthusiasm.

I was upset when I was leaving the theater after watching it, but the other day I went back to watch it again and I can say that time has definitely helped this movie out a lot because for me at least, this film showcases the notions of excess in the 90's and how filmmakers really seemed to believe that if they just threw enough money at something, that it would be a hit. They were partially right, but even though Waterworld ended up making $250,000 worldwide, because of the massive advertising campaign that they had to endure to get people to actually go and watch it, they ended up losing money anyway. In that sense I feel as though entertainment is cyclical because we are seeing this happen to film after film these days, especially with superhero films, and one would assume that studios would be dropping like flies when all of their films end up losing tens of millions of dollars.

Waterworld was an anomaly at the time and it was such a surprise that something that had so much money behind it, and so much star-power, could be such a colossal flop. I guess they were predicting the future with this one because now that happens all the time.

[src](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/6108357def19e519ecf4cbcc/master/pass/Kvas-Waterworld.jpg)

Another reason to go back and watch this again is because in 1995 we couldn't just CGI everything and have it be convincing. In order to get the shots needed for this film they had to use practical effects. Very little of the film involves computer graphics and well, it is quite noticeable in a lot of places. The famous jet skis exploding on impact scene is a fantastic example of that. It doesn't look even remotely real.

Kostner's character has no name, and is simply known as "The Mariner" and it is later shown that he has somehow evolved and has gills and he goes on a rather silly deep dive to some area on the bottom of the sea. Why? nobody knows and it has no impact on the plot. I guess they just needed to spend some more money.

There are a ton of massive plot-holes in this movie that are never explained and screw it, it actually makes the film more fun because so many things, such as where the hell is everyone getting gasoline from, are never really addressed. Sure they have a giant floating oil barge that the main baddy lives on, but anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of petroleum knows that you can't just shove crude oil into a jetski and get it to move. The refining process is actually extremely complicated and would require, I dunno, a great deal of dry land to have a factory to perform this process. The entire premise of the movie is that there is no dry land anymore and that is the entire reason why everyone is in such trouble.

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/waters-end/images/5/5f/A149cc7c493798a22cd0f317b745cab4.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20211105165749 src

The source of all the drama evolves around a girl named "Enola" who has a fucking tattoo on her back. A tattoo on a child, that's correct.. and this tattoo is meant to provide people with information about how to get to what is the only dry land remaining on the planet or something. How does the tattoo lead to this area? Nobody knows... When it is later revealed that Enola actually lived on said island in the past a collective groan literally rose up from the crowd in the theater where I was watching this in 1995.

The story is bad, the limited CGI is bad, most of the acting is bad, yet somehow, I really think that this film has improved dramatically over time. You need to watch it with the right mindset though and if you do, I think you will have a great time. You just need to remember that this film was meant to be super-serious yet it comes across like a comedy with how campy and bad it is. If you can go into it realizing this, I think you will have a great time.

[src](https://cdn.theasc.com/Waterworld-Semler.jpg)

When you take into account the extreme difficulties they would have had filming all of this, it becomes even better. That one photo above tells a massive tale because getting lighting just right is a very tricky game involving multiple light sources and reflections of just perfect order. Now imagine how difficult this is to accomplish when you have the unpredictable nature of the ocean basically working against you and your entire crew the whole time you are filming?

The film ended up getting nominated for awards but it didn't win any of the ones people actually want to receive. It was nominated for 4 Golden Raspberry awards and won only one of them and it was well-deserved. It went to Dennis Hopper for "worst supporting actor."

[src](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEin81gh2dQfs-DD5C909CtdZUpOu_L5YMupnsWT_e9J03pTQTCNeqVwoezc9b_vJ6CV4sBXARyayTYtqyF-umAf-vAN155yCQJEoyzwV9xcO4Ci2In-JZEIs_yYf_xaimGl8ECrc83I4Sk/s1280/Waterworld+2.jpg)

Again though, while it was seriously disappointing to me at the time because I expected a serious and gritty film, I look back on Hopper's performance with glee these days. He was handed an absurd character with absurd dialogue and was likely one of the first people on set to get fed up with the making of this film. Some of the scenes involving him appear as though they definitely needed refining and a few more takes but it honestly wouldn't surprise me if Hopper just outright refused. What are they gonna do? Reshoot the entire film with a new actor? I don't think so.

I find Waterworld to be a piece of cinematic history because it isn't often that the entire world gets let down so much by a film that they spent years making and telling us that it was going to be the best thing ever. These days I kind of expect films to flop on a regular basis but in those times, especially after the legendary film year that was 1994, this was something that truly caught us all off guard. If you've never seen it, I kind of envy you because you are in for a real treat of something that everyone involved thought was going to be an epic film that would be remembered throughout all time... Well, it is remembered, but probably not for the reasons that they originally hoped.

Currently this film can be legally streamed from a wide variety of services including Starz and AppleTV+

Permalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post

Comments

No comments yet — be the first.

6 more reviews

›WaterWorld the Kevin Costner's obsession@petercurator1045d
Source

WaterWorld (1995) was Kevin Costner's obsession with creating an aquatic version of MadMax, with all the implications that entailed.

Despite the existence of computer-generated effects at the time of filming (Jurassic Park was released two years earlier), Costner steadfastly refused to use them.

The challenging conditions of filming at sea only compounded the difficulty of the shoot, resulting in a financial drain on Costner's resources.
[Source](https://www.filmaffinity.com/ve/filmimages.php?movie_id=160303)

Unfortunately, the film did not fare well at the box office, as audience expectations had shifted to a preference for computer-generated effects.

Rising reviews and negative accounts of Costner's passion project only added to his financial stress.

The plot of WaterWorld told the story of humans in a post-global warming world where the polar ice caps had melted, leaving no visible land, and Costner played a mutant hero with gills.

Initially met with scorn, the film eventually gained cult status.

Despite the criticism, I find it a guilty pleasure that I enjoy revisiting from time to time.
[Source](https://www.filmaffinity.com/ve/filmimages.php?movie_id=160303)
Permalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post
›Waterworld with Kevin Costner@avatara1089d
Hello hivers, I hope you all are well today. I just saw the movie Waterworld, a few days ago this weekend. Sharing this on my quest to publish a couple of posts a week haha. The film brings back memories from my youth, the good old 90's. Have you seen it? I have seen the movie several times, it is from 1995 and a classic for me. 😃

It is a sci-fi adventure that takes place in a future where the earth is submerged in water, and people have to survive on floating islands and boats. The film's hero played by Kevin Costner, who has gills and can breathe underwater. And his fight against an evil pirate who wants to find the last dry land on earth. Will he succeed? Without revealing too much, there are some cool and nice scenes that are familiar if you've seen the movie. I can say that the film is full of action, humor and romance. The visuals are also very good for the 90's. And with actors like Jeanne Tripplehorn and Dennis Hopper, I really enjoyed the film.

It's one of the best movies I've seen with Kevin Costner, beside maybee The Bodyguard. Another one of my favorites. The movie has received good reviews online and I agree with the majority. I would give it a 8 out of 10 stars and recommend it to anyone who likes sci-fi, action and adventure. If you have seen it, what did you think about the movie?

Here is a trailer. 😃

source: youtube.com

Hope to see you in the next post, have a great day everyone! And thank you very much for stopping by. Il be back! 😏 https://ecency.com/hive-174578/@avatara/my-introduction-13th-post-on
Sources: All images/screenshots are taken by me unless otherwise stated.

Permalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post
›CineTV Contest #65 - Favorite Movie with Water : Waterworld.@nbarrios671107d

The waters cover the land as the ice of the polar ice caps have melted due to the greenhouse effect. The people who survived try to survive in cities built on silver floating forms or atolls (a kind of reef). Violence reigns, and the main occupation of the people was the search for fresh water.

The survivors hold out hope that one day they will set foot on dry land. An old legend indicated that somewhere there was dry land.
[Source](https://youtu.be/r4LLyBCz9tw)
Mariner, a lonely man who lives aboard a trimaran, (a boat made up of a main hull and two smaller parallel side floats, whose main characteristic is that by increasing its speed it can increase the sailing distance). Mariner presents a fascination for the world before it was flooded. He explores submerged cities in search of land to sell on the atolls, and also rescues pre-flood items that he keeps inside his trimaran. Land in this future fetches a high price.

This man is a kind of mutant agile and fast on land, fast underwater, being able to swim and jump out of the water at an astonishing speed.

The gills behind his ears allow him to breathe underwater as easily as he does in air, he can even breathe underwater for others, transferring oxygen to them, he can withstand very strong pressures at great depths, and his eyes are adapted to allow him to see both underwater and in the air. He is an expert survivor and navigator, adept with harpoons and firearms.

Source

The Smokers are pirates driven by irrational religious fanaticism who raid atolls and wandering ships alike. Their leader is Deacon, who plans to build a city ruled by him on terra firma, but he needs to know the location of this precious place before he can do so.

Source

Enola, is a girl who has on her back what is believed to be a map with coordinates for the mythical mainland. Helen, is a woman who cares for the welfare of the orphan girl who belonged to a tribe that lived on the mainland.

Source

These four characters find themselves on an atoll where the hostile inhabitants attack Mariner for being different from them, and subject him to torture. Just at that moment, the Smokers arrive to attack the atoll because they are looking for Enola due to the map tattooed on her back. Helen manages to free Mariner after her attempt to flee with the girl fails.
[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCE4PsEWzQo)
Enola, Helen and Mariner escape in the trimaran to be pursued by the Smokers, whose base of operations is the old oil tanker Exxon Valdez, famous for having had an oil spill that caused an unprecedented ecological catastrophe in the world.

Source

Mariner is the image of the warrior, lethal, effective and passionless, born out of a traumatic experience; terribly individualistic and extremely independent, reluctant to any positive assessment of the goodness of life.

Its special effects are effective and mostly made in the old style, with models, stuntmen and lots of pyrotechnics.
[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaGg0UQTOVs)
Shooting a movie at sea must be very complicated due to the amount of natural variables and light changes, here the cinematographer has done an excellent job.

James Newton Howard in the musical section shines and thanks to them the film is able to enhance the action scenes.

The performances of Kevin Costner (Mariner), Dennis Hooper (Deacon), Jeanne Tripplehorn (Helen) and Tina Majorino (Enola) are correct, being the most exaggerated that of Dennis Hooper.

Kevin Reynolds, the film's director, was constantly arguing with Kevin Costner, so the shooting was complicated and it is even said that Costner finished shooting the film.

There were many additional inconveniences in the filming:

The first problem arose when building the floating city , they used all the steel from the island of Hawaii, and when it was finished it was necessary to bring more from the United States. They loaded everything on a Boeing 747 and added two boats to be used by the main character. They forgot one small detail. The runway at the airport in Hawaii was too short for the landing of this type of aircraft and an extension had to be made, which was paid for by the studio.

Source

Additionally, two hurricanes destroyed the sets, which had to be reassembled. As most of the filming took place in the ocean, the floating city had to be moved five hundred meters away from the coast every day to avoid the island of Hawaii appearing in the background of the shots.

Tina Majorino was constantly stung by the bad water or jellyfish. During one day's work, a violent wave threw her and Jeanne Tripplehorn into the sea. The girl, who did not know how to swim well, remained near a propeller of the boat that was in motion. A diver jumped into the water and prevented the propeller from tearing her apart.

Source

It is a film that is not perfect but entertaining, with a quite atypical ending in which the protagonist does not stay with the girl, and rejects the earthly paradise. This happens because he is a mutant, a man of the sea, it is not his world, his happiness is in wandering the ocean.
[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx5Fc-98iSk)
Waterworld was released in 1995, the studio spent $170 million on the film plus $65 million in advertising, bringing the final cost to $235 million. In the United States it grossed $88 million and in the rest of the world $176 million, so miraculously Universal managed to recover its investment.

The film is an underrated title, but it contains enough elements to be considered not only a worthy science fiction film, and a film aware of the imminent problems of twenty years ago, and that today, with expected punctuality, are still here, aggravated. That climate change, so denied by some, imagined in the film by the rising water levels that would cause the melting of the north and south poles.

Really, the story behind the film gives for a more extensive publication.

This is my entry in the CineTV Contest #65 - Favorite Movie with Water initiative. Link Here

A big hello to all, good luck to the other participants.

Link to the first image Source

Permalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post
›Waterworld: Everyone bags on this film but I like it@netflixr1774d
I think that my opinion has a lot to do with the fact that I really like Kevin Costner and think he is one of the best actors of my lifetime. When Waterworld was released a lot of people jumped the gun to say that it was a terrible movie and that it was money wasted.

I'm not saying this is a cinematic masterpiece or anything but I think it gets a lot more hate than it deserves.
[src](https://static1.colliderimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/waterworld.jpg)
at just under $200 million in production costs, this was the most expensive movie ever made when it was made in 1995 and when you watch it, it is easy to understand how it cost so much to make.

How can you possibly make a film that takes place almost entirely in the ocean while concealing the fact that obviously the participants, crew, and even caterers had to be near land in order to make it happen at all.
[src](https://www.leftlion.co.uk/media/4922465/waterworld.jpg)
I don't know if this was anyone's professional opinion but a big part of the thing about this film that made me feel a bit "meh" about it was that it was essentially The Road Warrior but without a road. There are tons of plot-holes such as the fact that fuel seems to be readily available as are a lot of other things that would necessitate access to land in order to acquire such as the much sought after cigarettes that are featured throughout the film.

The stunts are absurd, the main baddie in the film whose motives for being a baddie are also quite unclear and of course there is the question of the young girl who has a massive tattoo on her back that indicates where the land is yet somehow this ends up being a rather minor aspect of the film since they kind of just stumble on the land in the end anyway.
[src](https://www.ericdsnider.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/Waterworld.jpg) _{Hopper won a Razzie for "worst supporting actor" for his role as Deacon}
Dennis Hopper is a good actor, I don't think most people would argue with this idea, but his performance as "Deacon" wasn't his fault, it was just a really stupid character to begin with. He was just evil for the sake of being evil. Also, the fact that his fortress was the Exxon Valdez is suppose to be shocking i guess but it was more of a "who gives a shit" moment when it is finally revealed. Plus the fact that his ship and his entire army were so easily dispatched was really dumb.
[src](https://i1.wp.com/theunheardnerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Deez-Sinking.jpg?fit=800%2C656&ssl=1)
So everything I have said so far would indicate that I hate this film but I actually do not. I have seen in many times and I would gladly do so again because the scenery is pretty damn awesome and the scenes on the open sea where "The Mariner" (Costner) is solo driving his boat were a massive accomplishment given the time period.

src

You don't watch Waterworld for an amazing story because there really isn't one there. The entire story is actually extremely dumb. However, it is entertaining and what do we watch movies for in the first place?

The action, while stupid for the most part, goes from start to finish in the film and I suppose this is an "it is what it is" film and honestly, it was kind of a first phase in what is basically all films that we see these days. 200 million isn't even considered a big budget these days and when a film is made, I don't think that the story really plays much into whether or not studios decide to make a film. I think what does go into a film is "can we get the Chinese to watch it" and "can we sell merch afterwards." This is the reason why almost everything is a superhero film these days.

Waterworld was a collassal failure domestically (meaning in the USA) but then later broke even once it was realized that Asian nations will watch basically anything that has huge amounts of money behind it. It is easy to understand why because while Japanese, Chinese, and Korean films are at the top of my lists of best of all time, they very rarely have even 20 million at their disposal.

If you haven't seen Waterworld I suggest you do so because guys, it was 1995 and computers were still pretty damn basic back then - even the really expensive ones. Therefore, a lot of the special effects look extremely fake by today's standards and that is part of the fun.

I highly suggest that you go and check this one out. It is currently available in some regions on Netflix and of course it is available to anyone that has some idea how to use torrents any time they want it.

Permalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post
›Waterworld on Netflix: it's better than i had heard@netflixr2219d
I don't know what I was doing in 1995 the prevented me from going to see this in theaters or even a few years later when it was released to DVD but I never saw this movie until yesterday. I have heard over the years that the movie was awful and I took that to heart. After watching it yesterday, I can see where people get that opinion from but I don't entirely agree with the idea that this movie is without merit.

src

It's hard to believe that this film is 25 years old now yet only recently made it into the Netflix library. I would imagine the streaming service was able to pick it up at a massive discount and there must have been quite a few people out there like me that had never seen it before because it was number 9 on the charts for my region when I switched it on.

I would be willing to bet that most people are at least somewhat familiar with this movie but in the event that you are one of the few that isn't, I can sum it up in one sentence: It is The Road Warrior if Mad Max took place on boats - that's basically the entire story.

src

Just like Max, the lead character in this film is a loner who keeps to himself and tends to not really want to have anything to do with the power-struggles of the good guys and bad guys, but gets roped into it the same way that Max did. Instead of transporting fuel, he is transporting a little girl who holds some sort of secret tattooed onto her back. Instead of being pursued by a gang on various odd vehicles through the wasteland the same thing happens but on water.

Instead of Lord Humungus (the muscular guy with the mask in Road Warrior) who is in charge of a violent but mostly very stupid gang of baddies, we have "The Deacon" (played by Hopper) who is a not muscular guy who is in charge of a violent but mostly very stupid gang of baddies.

Instead of a guy in a helicopter than provides support at key moments when it seems all hope is lost, Waterworld has a guy in a hot air balloon contraption or zeppelin that provides support at key moments. Searching for the similarities between the two films and coming to the conclusion that Waterworld copied a LOT of elements from Road Warrior is part of the reason why this movie is fun.

To be honest, years later Mad Max would return the favor by showcasing "Immortan Joe" as a leader who keeps the population under control by way of providing them with sustenance, which is exactly how Hopper's character is in Waterworld.
[src](https://c4.wallpaperflare.com/wallpaper/685/482/567/movie-waterworld-wallpaper-preview.jpg)
While the movie was largely panned and I agree with a great deal of their criticism, the movie has it's strong points. The sets are amazing and the action at times is pretty world-class. I speak mostly about the sequences that take place during battles on Kostner's boat (his character doesn't have a name, or at least he never reveals one if he does.) The lavish scenes and settings are why this movie ended up being absurdly expensive to produce and it wasn't until international ticket sales and later DVD sales were made that this movie even broke even. It was considered one of the biggest financial disasters at the time.

There are a few things in the movie that make it a little bit difficult to appreciate if you are expecting a great story:
- Where are the bad guys getting their seemingly endless supply of bullets and fuel? Everyone else seems to be subjected to wind power and spears. Unless I missed something this is never addressed.
- The little girl with the tattoo (little girl with a tattoo? really?) is the main prize that everyone is after, yet no one can interpret what the tattoo actually means - it doesn't seem to really help anyone and once it is figured out by someone it is a person that this little girl has known for years... why did he wait so long to check this out?
- When the tattoo is figured out, it is such a stupid eureka moment that you just don't care
- There's a lot of physical impossibilities that happen in the movie such as jetskis exploding when they run into one another.
- Despite the massive budget, some of the scenes look extremely fake, even by 1995 standards.
I couldn't find a better quality version of this and it must be because of copyright. But you get the idea.

So it seems as though I am mostly trashing this film for its story and that is because the story is very weak. It can actually make you mad at points. However, I feel as though the good outweighs the bad and I am glad I watched it.

Should I watch it?
If you aren't looking for a great story but can appreciate some good action, much of which is whimsical in nature and especially if you would like to see the long list of similarities between this movie and "The Road Warrior" I would say that yes, you should watch it. It is kind of a piece of history because at that point in time the financial losses were unprecedented.
Permalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post
›Ջրի աշխարհ (Waterworld, 1995)@panza2818d
Հավանաբար, հարկ է հիշեցնել մեկ անգամ եւս, որ թվականին «Ջրի աշխարհ» հակառակը ստեղծեց: Նույնիսկ ֆիլմի պրեմիերայից առաջ ֆիլմի ուղեկցությամբ բազմաթիվ սկանդալներ, բուռն բյուջեի զգալի գերազանցում, հարաբերությունները լարված էին սեղանի վրա, մեղմ ասած, ռեժիսորը թողել է նախագիծը մի քանի շաբաթ առաջ նկարահանման ավարտից հետո, թատրոնի տարբերակը գողացել էր ազատատերերի կողմից գերիշխողից մի քանի ամիս առաջ ավելի շատ գումար վաստակելով, ինչը թույլ տվեց նրան գրել կինոյի պատմության մեջ խոշորագույն ձախողում.

IMG

Այնուամենայնիվ, տասը տարի անց, այդպիսի բաները չեք հիշում եւ փորձում են վայելել: Այո, դա դեռեւս ավելի մեծ է, քան կյանքը արգելափակում, որը պարզապես հաճելի է դիտել սկսած մինչեւ վերջ: Մեր առջեւում ապագան հեռավոր, մռայլ եւ ճնշող: Երկրի վրա հերթական անգամ տեղի է ունեցել ապոկալիպսիա. Բեւեռային սառույցը հալեց, մեր երկիրը վերածելով մեծ ու միասնական օվկիանոսի: Միայն մի բուռ մարդիկ, ովքեր սովորեցին ապրել նոր ջրային աշխարհում, գոյատեւեց: Նրանց թվում է միայնակ թափառական, որի մասին գրեթե ոչինչ հայտնի չէ. Ոչ ոք չգիտի իր անունը, ուստի «մահը չի կարող գտնել նրան»: «Ջրի աշխարհ» ինչ-որ չափով վերափոխում է հետպատերազմյան ժանրի անմահ դասականների Ճանապարհային. Ջորջ Միլլերի պատկերով աշխարհը վերածվեց հսկայական անապատի, եւ հասարակությունը նվաստացվեց աներեւակայելի սահմանների: Ֆիլմում Կեվին Ռեյնոլդսը նույն բանն է կատարում, միայն ջուրը ավազի անապատի փոխարեն: Կա կարճ կտրուկ լուռ դերասան, որը շարժվում էր նոր աշխարհի ամենաբարդ մեքենայով: Այստեղ կա խճճված կտրուկ լռող հերոս, ամենահամեղ նավով, նույնիսկ ժամանակակից աշխարհի չափանիշներով: Թե Մաքսը եւ թե Մյոդոգը օգնեցին հիպիների յուրօրինակ խմբին, փորձելով նոր աշխարհ ստեղծել, նրանց պաշտպանելով գողերի բանդայից, որոնք գերազանցում են աննախադեպ շքեղ նյութը բենզին յուղ. Այնուամենայնիվ, «Ջրի աշխարհ» հիմնական բնույթը դեռեւս ավելի զարգացած է. Եթե դուք ապրում եք ջրի աշխարհում, ապա ինչ կարող է լինել ավելի լավը, քան ունեցող մարդը (մոռացեք նման փաստի համար անհրաժեշտ հարյուր հազարավոր տարիների էվոլյուցիայի) եւ կարող է շնչել ստորջրյա ինչը թույլ է տալիս նրան հանք գնել ամենաթանկարժեք ռեսուրսներից մեկը.

IMG

«Ջրի աշխարհ» ընկած է նոկաուտով զբաղվողների բոլոր պարամետրերի տակ խոշոր, լայնամասշտաբ, աղմկոտ, անիմաստ եւ անգութ: Սակայն ֆիլմը, որը ժամանակին չի ընդունվել, չի զիջել զվարճանքներին: Հիշողության վրա տպագրված բազմաթիվ տեսարաններ դեռ կան: հիմնական բնույթի ծովամշակված տեսակետից եւ նրա նավը դեպի նախկին Դենվերի սողացող կրակոցները: նավթային դիլերներում սպանդի ենթարկելու համար ատոլի վրա կատարված հարձակումներից եւ նկարահանումներից խուսափելու համար: անմահ եղբայրներ ից ոչ պակաս կրոնական Նա է իմ ընկերը մուլտիպլիկացիոն ոճրագործներից եւ հերոսներից մինչեւ Դենիս Հոփփերը, վայելելով իր բնավորության յուրաքանչյուր երկրորդ աստիճանը: Չկա զարմանալի բան, որ «Ջրի աշխարհ» հիմնականում տապալվեց տուփի մեջ, քանի որ կինոնկարում ամենաթանկ ֆիլմը, իր ազատման պահին, պետք է առանձնահատուկ բան ունենար, բացի այդ, հետպատերազմյան հողամասից: Մի կողմից, նման ֆիլմեր շատ քիչ են: Գլոբալ տաքացման մասին, ընդհանուր առմամբ, միավորների մասին: Իսկ թե ինչպես մարդկության մնացորդները գոյատեւում են ջրհեղեղի վրա, հողը որոնելու համար, նույնիսկ ավելի քիչ: Ավելի զարմանալի է, որպես ֆանտաստիկ ֆիլմերի հոլովակ, վստահ է, որ նկարահանել, որը հայտնի դերասան է, այլ ոչ թե ռեժիսորն է նման ժանրում: «Պարերը գայլերի հետ» եւ «Փոստմենը» գերազանց ֆիլմեր են, սակայն դրաման եւ արեւմտյան տարբերությունները տարբերվում են ոգով հետընտրական ապոկալիպտիկ ներգրավմամբ.

IMG

«Ջրի աշխարհ», անշուշտ, դարձել է լայնածավալ եւ գեղեցիկ, բայց ֆիլմի համար, որը կազմում միլիոն դոլար, Իսկ ավելի քան 2 ժամ տեւողությամբ, դա բավարար չէ: Ի վերջո, այդ ժամանակվա նույնիսկ բնօրինակ գաղափարը չի կատարվել միայն Հոլիվուդի ակցիայի ֆիլմի տեսանկյունից: Անիմաստ հերոսը, որը աննկատորեն ինքն իրեն հարմարեցրեց ջրի տակ (ես խոսում եմ գայլերի մասին), քիչ է նման մարդկության փրկչին: Ավելին, հերմիտի վրա, ով չի հետաքրքրում իր ամբողջ աշխարհի շուրջ, եւ այդպես է նա հայտնվում ֆիլմի հենց սկզբում: Ավելին, ինչպես սովորաբար դեպքերում, նրա հայացքը սկսում է փոխվել, քանի որ երկու գաղութիստներ չեն ցանկանում հրաժարվել մի կտոր սուշի գտնելուց: Եվ այնուհետեւ գոյություն ունի «ծխողների» փոքրիկ բանակը, բնորոշ վարդեր, գլխավորած մի խելագար. Եվ ընդհանուր առմամբ, նրա շնորհիվ եւ «Ջրի աշխարհ» որակյալ գործողությունների բաղադրիչը, որը դեռ հաջողակ էր ամբողջ աշխարհում հեռուստադիտողների հետ, նույնիսկ եթե դա չկարողացավ բնավորությունը հակասական անմահ թեմա է, հավանաբար, ցանկացած ֆիլմի մեջ, բայց պարզվեց, որ շատ խառնաշփոթ է: Նա չի տեսնում մի վիշապ կամ հոգեբան, կարծես նա պարզապես լողում էր իր բիզնեսի մասին եւ հանկարծ որոշեց օգնել սարկավագի դժբախտ զոհերին: Բայց եթե դու աչքդ փակես, հնարավոր է, որ այն ժամանակ մեծ քանակությամբ ակցիա լինի, քանի որ ակցիան տեղի է ունենում ջրի մեծ ծախսերի մեջ.

Permalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post

Comments

6 more reviews

Should I watch it?