I want to be clear, I don’t think that Waterworld is some misunderstood masterpiece. And after re-watching it for the first time earlier this week, I think it’s quite a bit better than that. I remember seeing Waterworld on opening day 25 years ago and thinking it wasn’t all that terrible. If I wasn’t writing this, I’d probably be thinking that, too. That this is just another one of those insincere, contrarian hot takes where a critic goes to bat for some dinged-up piece of pop-culture flotsam in the hopes of getting a few clicks. But let me propose a possibly heretical idea: What if Waterworld isn’t actually that bad? What if it’s actually…kind of good? In retrospect, there was really no way that it couldn’t have become the biggest cinematic folly of the ‘90s. For months, the tabloids had chronicled the film’s ever-escalating budget, its seemingly endless string of production delays, and the off-screen trials of its star, Costner, who’d become ensnarled in a messy private divorce from his wife at the time and an even messier public one from his Waterworld director, Kevin Reynolds. Like any $180 million ego trip-especially one top-lined by a guy who America had decided was overdue for a crash-and-burn bit of karmic comeuppance- Waterworld was doomed to fail before it ever stood a chance.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |