Waterworld Photos

View All Photos (5)

Cast

Kevin Costner
as Mariner

Jeanne Tripplehorn
as Helen

Tina Majorino
as Enola

Dennis Hopper
as Deacon

Michael Jeter
as Gregor

Gerard Murphy
as Nord

R.D. Call
as Enforcer

Kim Coates
as Drifter No. 2

Chaim Jeraffi
as Drifter No. 1

John Fleck
as Doctor

Robert Joy
as Ledger Guy

Jack Black
as Pilot

John Toles-Bey
as Plane Gunner

Zakes Mokae
as Priam

Sab Shimono
as Elder No. 1

Leonardo Cimino
as Elder No. 2

Zitto Kazann
as Elder No. 3/Survivor No. 1

Ric Aviles
as Gatesman

Henry Kapono Ka'aihue
as Gatesman

Tracy Anderson
as Gatesman

Luke Ka'illi Jr.
as Boy

Anthony DeMasters
as Boy

Willy Petrovic
as Boy

Jack Kehler
as Banker

Lanny Flaherty
as Trader

Robert A. Silverman
as Hydroholic

Rita Zohar
as Atoller

Chris Douridas
as Atoller

August Neves
as Old Atoller

Neil Giuntoli
as Hellfire Gunner

David Finnegan
as Toby

Gregory B. Goossen
as Sawzall Smoker

Guy William Preston
as Depth Gauge

Ari Barak
as Atoll Man

Alexa Jago
as Atoll Woman

Sean Whalen
as Bone

Robert LaSardo
as Smitty

Lee Arenberg
as Djeng

Doug Spinuzza
as Truan

View All

News & Interviews for Waterworld

Critic Reviews for Waterworld

Audience Reviews for Waterworld

• Mar 04, 2018

  Don't get me wrong, this is not a good movie but it isn't a complete disaster. The scope of the production is impressive and there are solid action sequences. If they'd spent more time on the screenplay and had a better lead actor this might have worked.
  

  Alec B Super Reviewer
• May 10, 2013

  An underwater futuristic city would've be a better idea for a waterworld in my book. Anyways, it does pack quite a lot of unique above-water contraptions in use throughout besides exhilarating action sequences, though I literally didn't get the deal with the Smokers fighting for oil for whatever reason.
  Max G Super Reviewer
• Jun 08, 2012

  I'm not saying that this $175 million box office disaster of a post-disaster film flopped like a fish, but the world wasn't the only thing pertaining to this film that sank. Well, at least Costner did just fine on the home market and during the BP oil spill incident, because this film pretty much helped them come up with that filtering water centrifuge that got quite a bit of money. At that moment, Costner must have thought that this film finally paid off, up until Stephen Baldwin sued him for cheating him out of a business deal with BP. Wow, Costner really can't catch a break with this film, because that suit doesn't appear to hold too much water. Sorry for all of these somewhat wishy-washy puns, but that's what happens when you go to your dad for suggestions for a joke. Okay, I actually came up with most of the puns and my dad's actually pretty awesome; certainly cool enough to tell that this film is a little bit lame, but still pretty enjoyable. That's pretty much right on the money, something that this film is no stranger to, or at least in terms of spending it, yet make no mistake, this film does get goofy. The film hits a fair couple of cheesy points, whether it be in the cornball dialogue or some cheesy concepts, yet what is more consistent in its being so hard to buy, if not completely far-fetched is the science behind this film, which is hardly tight. Much of the science seems overly fantastic, while some of your more plausible pieces of science are rather obscure, yet treated with such casualness that they too come off as entirely hard to buy into. Still, the obscure aspects of this futuristic world don't simply end on a scientific level, as many of the film's interpretation of society, whether it be its behavior or vocabulary, feel so very in-tune with their own mythology to where they, while still reasonably easy to figure out, remain rather esoteric in their attempt to place us deeper into this world, when really, they simply come off as silly to the point of disconnecting us further. Still, it's not simply the world's mythology that feels much too underdeveloped, because if I'm to start discussing the traditional storytelling issues with this film, allow me to start with what this film should have started with: development, for the film, while not devoid of exposition, seems too interested in its general concepts to contribute a considerable amount of care into fleshing out the story, or at least telling it in a consistently engaging fashion. Surprisingly, the film is a tad slow, with a limp narrative that just doesn't grip all that thoroughly, rendering the film periodically disengaging, with quite a bit of repetition and points of extreme looseness in the editing of moments of simple nothingness exacerabting the disconnect. Really, to be honest, the silliness of the film is quite frankly the least of its worries, as the film ultimately stands as aimless and underwhelming, helplessly paddling in a sea of ambition. However, the film stays afloat, carried to the shores of general enjoyability by what ambitious aspects it does, in fact, fulfill, particularly its ambitions of production. The production designs of the film are nothing if not remarkable, with most every constructed component to this world being so dynamic and heavily detailed to where they can be believed as pieces of the environment, yet remain dazzling in their slickness, as well as their broadness. These grand production pieces add quite the compliment to the action sequences, just about all of which are unfortunately overlong, yet they are all also thrilling and sweeping, with sharp staging and intrigue that wouldn't be what it is without the film's sharp style. This visual spectacle, married with Mark Isham's and James Newton Howard's excellent score work, gives the film a genuine sense of sweep and scope to juice as much of the worthiness as it can salvage from the concept. Yes, this story is a worthy and unique one, indeed, and while it is ultimately betrayed by its own ambitions, as well as a great deal of other things, it still makes the film rather fascinating. If nothing else, the film's ambitions evoke a kid of charm that's intense enough to win you over, yet pulled back enough to let what other bits of resonance there is to spill upon the audience and engage them further. These moments stand to be more prevalent, yet whenever they are present, they're well worth waiting for, giving the film a degree of compellingness to break up the repetition, which, even then, goes faught back by the aforementioned charm, augmented by the performers, almost all of whom are, if nothing else, rather charming by their own right. Again, the film stands to fulfills its promising concepts more, or at least to engage more, yet once the film gets a hold, it's hard to not just flow into it and have a genuinely good time enjoying it as a generally entertaining product. Washing up to the shores, the final product of this perhaps too ambitious project is, at times, silly and often far-fetched in its scientific and human aspects, while what hurts it the most is simply that it is just so very underwhelming and often lacking in intrigue, plagued by the occasional piece of loose editing, some repetition and much slowness, yet the film manages to pull to the surface enough, being kept afloat by an epic sweep, spawned from sharp score work and fanatastic production designs - which also make for some good action sequences -, but most of all, moments of genuine intrigue to break up the consistent charm that helps the most in ultimately making "Waterworld" an enjoyably dazzling example of general entertainment through messiness. 2.5/5 - Fair
  Cameron J Super Reviewer
• Apr 01, 2012

  Waterworld was fun, exciting, and really creative. The story was relatively captivating and the film was an entertaining afternoon watch.
  Sam E Super Reviewer

Waterworld Quotes

News & Features