abi_sheldon I saw this when it came out and loved it--but Dennis Hopper was a really bad memory, over-acted and dull. HOWEVER, I had to see it again just because of its premise. I still love it, and it's not Dennis Hopper who bugs me any more--except for the cheap-trick eye-socket displays. He blends well with his dystopian setting, plus looks good in an eye patch. Now, in this week's re-viewing Jeanne Tripplehorn sticks in my craw--yechh!! I don't mind dumb, necessarily, or aggressive--but combined they make your average back-up villains. Having the female lead come on as dumb and aggressive was too much--nearly unwatchable. Junior female lead Tina Majorino was doing a good job in her role, so i kept swimming. I had to see the whole world of a submerged Earth with its nautical and mechanical ingenuity, and particular social problems. It is a fable beautifully told--no CGI--and a worthy part of Kevin Costner's legacy.

Andrea Compton I attempted to watch this movie, got about 25 minutes into it. I did think to myself it was filmed similarly to Mad Max (I saw someone else say that on a review). Anyway, it is not the worst movie ever but it was just not good. The acting was so cheesy! The costumes were cheesy. And I just could not watch anymore of it after only 25 minutes! I am a Kevin Costner fan usually, but not this time.

Hitchcoc When one starts with a premise that is so ludicrous and so lacking in any scientific basis, a society where economics are so contrived, it takes everything one can forgive to get through it. Yes, there are lots of close calls and adventures. The people who populate the world seem to be managing. They all seem to be well fed and have clothes to wear. This, despite a place where grain can't grow and there are no trees. Where fossil fuels are bound to run out in a short period of time. I don't know. Maybe I think too much about stinkers like this. In the old days, there used to be Saturday morning serials at movie theaters, like Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, or others where everything was assumed to be fine because these people never had to face the realities of daily life. Kevin Costner is such a fine actor. He must have gotten a lot of money to do this.

Timo Reichert (I don't really think that I spoiler anything, but I just wanted to make sure)I love apocalyptic movies - I really do. It is the extreme contrast to our current reality which makes them so interesting. So this was a plus on watching "Waterworld".I've watched Waterworld for the first time about 10 years ago and whenever I think back I have a good feeling about the movie. That's why I watched it again in 2016. And boy - it didn't disappoint. The story as an apocalyptic movie is great, but the atmosphere is exceptional well done and gripping.As for the acting goes - I'm not really an expert in it even though I've watched a lot of movies in my 23 years - but I had the feeling that it was superb.But what I really liked about Waterworld is the connection between Mariner (Kevin Costner) and the little kid. Mariner who became very coldhearted, egoistic and skeptical to other humans through his ruff time on the water for many years, learns to trust and even developed feelings/emotion for other human-beings through his interaction with the little girl. He is the typical "hard shell,soft core"-man.Last but not least - "older" movies - around 1985-2005 (Lethal Weapons, Rush Hour etc etc) have this realistic feeling/vibe which I really miss on current blockbusters. They all look too much enhanced through CGI.