Kevin Costnerhad full artistic freedom for a time in the ‘90s, and he used it to make the infamous $264 million box office disappointment currently streaming on Peacock.Dances With Wolvesand its $424 million gross earned the film’s Oscar-winning star and director the coveted Hollywood blank check.
Having further proven his audience appeal with the1992 blockbusterThe Bodyguard, Costner cashed in his equity by embarking on an action-adventure project of epic scale, budgeted at up to $175 million. The film arrived in 1995,but buzz around the movie was already negative, due to reports of a ballooning budget, and behind-the-scenes drama.
Kevin Costner’s Waterworld Is Now Streaming On Peacock
It Arrived July 1
Critical pans also contributed to the bad buzz aroundWaterworld, the $264 million box office disappointment now streaming on Peacock. Universal reportedly spent upwards of $235 million on the movie, once marketing and distribution costs were factored in, and it only found its way to profitability thanks to home video sales.
Waterworld’s “Ulysses Cut” fan edit restores scenes deleted from the movie’s 135-minute theatrical version.
Why You Should Watch Waterworld
The Epic Movie Is Ripe For Rediscovery
Waterworldcurrently sits at 45% on Rotten Tomatoes, indicating a negative critical consensus. The film’s reputation as one of the all-time worst flops is not entirely earned, however, as evidenced by a handful of positive comments by critics, and some words of praise from the movie’s creators.
Roger Ebert’s 1995 review typifies what most critics had to say aboutWaterworld. He commends the film’s set design and visuals, but laments its lack of strong characters, calling it “a marginal picture” and saying he can’t recommend it.
30 years after the movie’s release,Waterworldis indeed still an impressive technical achievement. That the film’s sets are all practical, and its water-borne stunts were all achieved without the aid of CGI, is a huge plus in an era of computer effects fatigue.
Waterworldmay have been an epic flop in 1995,but now it seems refreshingly analog. 30 years have also wiped away the narrative that grew up around the film due to behind-the-scenes issues and reports of an out-of-control budget.
It’s perhaps telling that, despite the film’s negative impact on his career, Costner remains very fond of it, saying back in 2013 (viaHuffpost):
“It stands up as a really exotic, cool movie. I mean, it was flawed — for sure. But, overall, it’s a very inventive, cool movie. It’s pretty robust.”
Even more revealing are the remarks of director Reynolds, whose on-set clashes with Costner became so heated, he had to quit the film before it was completed. In spite of that experience, Reynolds thinksWaterworldis better than its reputation, tellingDen of Geekback in 2008:
I think yeah, it’s certainly got its faults, but I think, you know, on another level I think it works quite well compared to some of the other big films.
TodayWaterworldis regarded as an interesting ‘90s artifact, and is generally only mentioned in terms of Costner’s career narrative, cropping up again in connection with Costner’s ambitious Western epicHorizon.
Some might be motivated to watchWaterworldprecisely because of its reputation as a historic bomb,and may be pleasantly surprised to find that it’s long been underrated.
