WATERWORLD is kino and I'm tired of pretending it isn't. When it was being made the cast and crew got tired of journalists getting in the way near and on set, so they banned them from coming anywhere near it. Journos were so butthurt that they all got together and decided to write hit piece after hit piece. It worked and the film is now associated with the term flop, which simply wasn't true. It was essentially their own GamerGate. Any other films like this that were actively rallied against and they were able to turn public opinion against, even though it was good?
The biggest set burned down and had to be completely rebuilt which made it go incredibly overbudget, doesn't change the fact that plenty of people went to see it, and rented it on video. But they spend ungodly amounts of money on it. Costner was basically a King of Hollywood in that era and could make any project happen, but at that point the critics were definitely turning on him. Probably because his last blockbuster, Wyatt Earp, is one of the worst westerns ever made. Like holy shit, it's godawful. Waterworld I think unfairly shares some of the hatred started with Wyatt Earp, that movie was really what killed the Costner hype and gave him a bad reputation.
I've actually never seen Wyatt Earp. One of the few Costner films I haven't. I'm guessing from your rec it isn't worth it.
It's a vanity project to end all vanity projects. It makes Steven Seagal's On Deadly Ground seem subtle by comparison
>I'm Wyatt Earp
>I am the greatest person in this scene
>and in this scene
>and I'm so cool and awesome, once again
There I spoiled the whole movie for you. It's on the level of Naruto fanfiction
Jesus. There are only two Costner films I haven't seen, or saw when I was a kid and didn't like. Wyatt Earp is one I haven't seen, and The Postman is the one I didn't like. Saw it in theaters. I remember nothing about it save for his uniform. I plan on watching it again to see if it's actually good and I was just a dumb kid.
The Postman was just like a shittier Waterworld, with some weird cuckoldry subplot, and again Costner plays an unlikable jackass superdude. I think this worked in Waterworld, because he was an outsider and a freak, but in The Postman and Wyatt Earp and other movies he just comes off ass a total douchebag that you want to punch in the face. He really got a big head after Dances with Wolves
True, but Dances is pure unfiltered kino.
An interesting way to describe pig excrement.
You didn't even like DWW anon? Even people that hate Costner can admit it's good.
>buf
>buffalo
>tetonka
I enjoyed the Postman and Waterworld.
The former was a nice scammer turned hero story, like Road to El Dorado or Dragonheart
Careful with that pic, Anon; you'll rile up the UOHers
I'm not sure what you mean.
If Kevin Reynolds wasn't fired, it would indeed be great as its fans pretend it is. His scenes dance circles around Costner's. He is an actual visionary director.
>I'm tired of pretending it isn't.
Why were you pretending it isn't? Excellent adventure movie. Amazing sets. Very quotable. Memorable scenes. There are a couple scenes that I think a little too far in the cheesy direction but overall it's great.
Just an excuse to start a thread, anon. I agree, I love the atmosphere and visuals. The steely blue of the Pacific. Those outstanding mattes and miniatures during the underwater exploration scenes. It's one of my favorite films of the 90s.
my favorite moment was the old man. the "oh thank God!" always gives me a chuckle.
Kino.
1/4 of the people down there were kids. He didn't give a single frick.
It has some of the best stuntwork ever done with watercraft, up there with Mad Max 2.
The only bright spot in the Postman is Will Patton's performance as the antagonist.
3000 Miles to Graceland and Open Range are pure Costnerkino. I think he learned from his mistakes in the 90s.
Yeah, Waterworld is a lot of fun. The little girl not being able to swim is pretty stupid, but overall it's a really enjoyable adventure movie.
>The little girl not being able to swim is pretty stupid
I actually like that part a lot. Regardless of the plausibility, it gave Enola and The Mariner an earned moment to bond. Which is something I really appreciated about the film overall. A lot of stories would have him be mean for like 2 seconds and then fall in love with her and become protective. It takes him a LONG time to learn how to act civil and trust humans.
My only gripe with the Ulysses Cut is that they added a scene (after the dead traders hanging with strings) where Ellen realizes he was going to sell them both to the traders. It kinda revert his character back and makes the "bonding" scene meaningless. They were right in removing that scene in the original cut, so he has a more clear progression.
Agreed, but it's one of those things that showed just how much he didn't want to live in the human world. Like when the traders try and offer him a young girl to bed and he refuses.
It’s a nod to her being the only person out in the ocean that was born on land. She didn’t have to learn to swim from birth. But I understand the lack of practicality of her never learning.
>WATERWORLD is kino and I'm tired of pretending it isn't.
BASED, just like Paul Blart Mall Cop!
I know more people who like this movie than those who hate it.
?si=KTUlw3QdWW9NS2z3
Paaaaayper!
>Any other films like this that were actively rallied against and they were able to turn public opinion against, even though it was good?
Friedkin's Sorcerer got dragged trough shit after it came out. But if you read the old reviews, you'll be having a hard time to figure out what their actual problem with the movie is. But let me help you:
>after The Exorcist, Friedkin spoke openly about his beliefs
>he was a israelite who believed that Jesus was the real Messiah and other israelites committed a terrible sin by murdering him
>this is basically the ultimate heresy among ~~*them*~~
>the movie also features a Palestine freedom fighter (twats refer to them as "terrorists")
Either way, Sorcerer flopped horribly, despite being one of the best movies ever made. And Friedkin got shitcanned for years, never rebuilding his Hollywood status he gained after The Exorcist.
Thanks for that, anon. Sorcerer is my favorite Freidkin and my second favorite Roy Scheider film. I never knew that. Pretty fricked how things have always kind of been the same.
In that meme interview with Refn, Friedkin talks about how reviewers backstabbed him overnight. Even those ready to suck fresh steamy turds out of Friedkin's butthole a month before, now went out of their way to give the movie as negative review as possible. Keep in mind - there was no internet and journos' words actually meant something back then (even though they shouldn't, but that's another story). Bad reviews meant people won't see the movie and it'll flop, no word of mouth could save it. This might've just been the most shameful sabotage in movie history. Sorcerer has been later used as one of he reasons movie industry flopped (second only to Heaven's Gate) and studios pretty much took control over movies' production. Only few sacred cows like Spielberg were allowed actual artistic freedom since then. So I guess it benefited Hollywood in the long run. The viewers - not so much.
This is the manliest movie I've ever seen. The toughest most relentless American movie in a long time indeed. I just showed it to my normie ex-jock friend and he was sucking in through his teeth the whole time lmao.
Also I watched it based purely on the poster which is itself a masterpiece.
>Also I watched it based purely on the poster which is itself a masterpiece
Same reason I watched it years ago. It's such an amazing moment and the poster really captures that.
The poster scene still doesn't get enough credit. It's amazing how Friedkin fricks with the viewer and just keeps prolonging it endlessly. You're watching a fricking tire stuck on a wooden bridge and it feels like the most emotionally wrecking thing in existence. I almost felt physically tired after it was finally over. That fricking rubber tire was a better actor than all current year capeshit losers combined.
For me, knowing nothing of the story, I needed to know why they were trying to get across that bridge and even knowing nothing about the story, I could tell they are desperately hanging on the precepice of doom, I just couldn't understand how..
Something I only noticed in my last rewatch was that the tire that so faithfully served them up until that point did not just randomly pop while they were driving near the cliff.
Based fellow "I saw the poster" viewers
Think it probably had more to do with critics being outraged he would remake Wages of Fear, which they've always had a gigantic hard on for as one of the best movies ever. Was probably more like the situation with the Psycho remake in 98.
My friend Russ still refuses to watch it cause of that. Even though I personally like it more than Wages Of Fear, and I still love that film.
That was the usual excuse, but I don't buy it. Scarface came out year before Sorcerer and most critics loved both those movies.
Also, it wasn't even a remake. It was an adaptation. Gus Van Sant's Psycho was a shot-by-shot remake that introduced nothing except colors (which arguably made the movie worse in the first place) and couldn't justify its existence. That's not the case with Sorcerer and Wages of Fear.
>shot-by-shot remake that introduced nothing except colors
I remember being so angry about this movie. So you added a scene where Norman faps while looking through the peep hole. What a great contribution to cinema.
>So you added a scene where Norman faps while looking through the peep hole
Legitimately one of the biggest wastes of film stock.
waterworld was the last movie of its kind. not only did journo hit pieces ruin the film, it also had stuff like jurassic park going up against it, which had amazing cgi. The only cgi waterworld used was the shark, and it was underwhelming. I'm not saying it's the cg that makes a movie great. I'm saying it's also what allowed people to target.
This movie is shit. If I had to choose between this slop or grease, I'd choose grease.
No slop for you then Redslayerjedi23?
I got shillllllls, they're multiplying
It was ahead of its time
what an autist
This movie was iffy right up until the little b***h gave the worst speech in the world about how Kevin Costnertard could hide behind the wings of a fly or some shit. It went on for like two minutes and it was so bad that it prevented the movie from being kino.
Kino does not have shitty stupid scenes in it. Kino cannot exist when a shitty child actor is given awful lines and delivers them badly. That is not what kino is. Waterworld is not kino and cannot be kino.
That said, I'd kill my mother to frick prime Jean Tripplehorn.
Siphoned and filtered
Here, I found it. Read it out loud to yourself.
Enola : He doesn't have a name, so death can't find him. He doesn't have a home or people to care for. He's not afraid of anything, men least of all. He's fast and strong like the big wind. He can hear 100 miles and see 100 miles underwater. He can hide in the shadow of the noon sun. He can be right behind you and you wont even know it till your dead.
Read it out loud to yourself in your shitty fat kid's room and tell me it's part of a good movie. Then pound a tent stake into your eye until you're not stupid anymore.
>Read it out loud to yourself in your shitty fat kid's room
kek
Just makes me imagine Ray Velcoro standing in his redheaded son's room drunkenly ranting about how full of himself Kevin Costner is
Agreed, that scene is undiluted kino. No accounting for taste.
Ishtar, man
>Chicago Reader critic Jonathan Rosenbaum surmised that the media were eager to torpedo Ishtar in retaliation for instances of Beatty's perceived "high-handed way with members of the press".[23] The film had been completely closed to the media, with no reporters at all permitted on set during production, a restriction greater than Beatty's previous productions.[12] Specifically, Rosenbaum mentions critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert: "he was really getting them very irritated, and using them as the butt of all these jokes, and so on. And so the point is that if you start multiplying that in terms of the treatment [of] a lot of other people in the press, Ishtar was their one chance finally to get even."
I'd always heard about Ishtar being one of the all time flops, but I hadn't heard the behind the scenes stuff. Like I said, hearing about all of this has opened my eyes to the fact that journos were never to be trusted, and I was naive to think it was any different when I was growing up in comparison to today.
>Because of the runaway costs of the production some critics dubbed Waterworld "Fishtar"
kek
don't care, saw it when I was 11 in theaters and had a fricking blast
it's good for what it is
whish there was a director's cut
Kinda tough when the movie was directed by two people who ended up hating each other
>associated with the term flop
it was a flop
In theaters, yes.
Lol I mentioned this movie to someone today and we laughed about the scene where Kevin Costner just slaps the shit out of that little kid.
The directors cut is actually worse than the theatrical release. Was surprised how much worse it made the film
I saw this about a decade ago now and absolutely loved it, I couldn't believe it when I heard it was supposedly hated.
reminder that republican stars like costner and gibson started to suffer once it was clear that bush sr was on his way out. as soon as the dems came into office we got different stars and the republican actors and movies we used to get became very sparse
I hate Hollywood so fricking much.