Like a pack of ghoulish spectators craning their necks at a five-car pile-up, the press had already started calling it Fishtarand Kevins Gateand the most expensive gamble in movie history. This was long before anyone had even seen a single frame of the finished film, mind you. Still, the collective sense of Tinseltown schadenfreude was off the charts. And when it did finally hit theaters, the reactions of both the critics and the audience were brutal. The movie: Kevin Costners 1995 post-apocalyptic turkey Waterworld, of course. And it opened 25 years ago today.

Like any $180 million ego tripespecially one top-lined by a guy who America had decided was overdue for a crash-and-burn bit of karmic comeuppanceWaterworld was doomed to fail before it ever stood a chance. For months, the tabloids had chronicled the films ever-escalating budget, its seemingly endless string of production delays, and the off-screen trials of its star, Costner, whod 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. In retrospect, there was really no way that it couldnt have become the biggest cinematic folly of the 90s. But let me propose a possibly heretical idea: What if Waterworld isnt actually that bad? What if its actuallykind of good?

Look, I know what youre thinking. 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. If I wasnt writing this, Id probably be thinking that, too. But Im dead serious. I remember seeing Waterworld on opening day 25 years ago and thinking it wasnt all that terrible. And after re-watching it for the first time earlier this week, I think its quite a bit better than that. I want to be clear, I dont think that Waterworld is some misunderstood masterpiece. But I am convinced that enough time has gone by that it deserves its day in the cinematic court of appeals. So I guess you could consider this is the case for the defense.

This content is imported from YouTube. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

For a project that would end in ignominy, Waterworld actually began in irony. The film that would go down as the most expensive in Hollywood history grew out of a pitch meeting in, where else, the offices of the notoriously cheap movie producer, Roger Corman. Peter Rader was a Harvard grad with ambitions to direct. And as he sat in the office of one of Cormans development execs one day in the late 80s, he was told that if he could write a Mad Max rip-off, there might be a South African investor willing to finance it. When Rader left the meeting, the idea began to take seed in his brain and slowly grew into something biggerand more expensiveThunderdome on water. When he went back to Cormans offices, he was told that his new idea sounded too pricey. It might even cost as much as $5 million! Corman & Co. were out.

Rader went off and fleshed the idea out on his own as a spec script. And in 1989, he sold it to producer Lawrence Gordon (The Warriors, 48 Hrs., Predator). Seven drafts later, it found its way into the hands of Costner. He liked it. And so did Reynolds, who had directed Costner in the 1985 road comedy Fandango. Before the two could team up on Waterworld, however, they went off and made 1991s Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. During that film the two had had a falling out in the editing room. A power play, really. And they stopped speaking, with Reynolds walking off the project all together.

Ben Glass/Universal/Kobal/Shutterstock

Now, for most sane people that sort of clash might have been seen as an omen that they shouldnt work together again any time too soon. But Costner and Reynolds both wanted to make Waterworld, so they decided to bury the hatchetkind of. In June of 1994, the two headed off to Hawaii to start filming their epic about a future after the ice caps had melted and the world was covered in nothing but ocean. Drinkable water and oil are precious commodities. People live on garbage atolls. Theres a gang of villains called Smokers (led by a bald Dennis Hopper behind an eyepatch and a Foghorn Leghorn accent). Theres a 10-year-old girl/messiah figure named Enola (Tina Majorino) with a map of a mythical Eden called Dryland tattooed on her back. Shes protected by a woman named Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn). And finally, theres a mysterious drifter on a catamaran named Mariner (Costner), who has webbed toes and vaginal gill slits behind his ears. He also drinks his own pee, but thats neither here nor there. The Smokers want the girl; a reluctant Mariner wants to protect the girl; and everyone wants the girl to lead them to Dryland.

Ben Glass/Universal/Kobal/Shutterstock

This, in short, is the plot of Waterworld. But beneath all of its George Miller-goes-to-Sea World window dressing, Rader (and about five additional screenwriters, including David Twohy and Joss Whedon) also managed to conjure a pretty ahead-of-its-time Al Gore fever dream about global warming, dwindling natural resources, and the three Rs: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Its a stunningly ambitious screenplay that manages to say a lot between the lines when its not stepping on its own feet. Its also an odd project for a big-conglomerate studio like Universal to wager nearly $100 million on (which was its original greenlight budget).

Reynolds shooting schedule called for 96 days. But as storms repeatedly wreaked havoc on the movies pricey floating sets and ambitions ratcheted up rather than scaled down, cameras would keep rolling for 166 days in all, and the budget would nearly double. When they finally returned to L.A. to edit their footage, Reynolds and Costner clashed in the editing room yet again. Past, it seemed, was prologue. Costner, who now had a Best Directing Oscar under his belt thanks to Dances with Wolves, wasnt the kind of guy to take a backseat. And once again, Reynolds walked off the film. Said Reynolds later, In the future, Costner should only appear in pictures he directs himself. That way, he can always be working with his favorite actor and his favorite director.

Thats all backstory. And reading it, you might reach the conclusion: Of course, Waterworld was dead on arrival. But all you have to do is go back and look at the tortured, super-expensive production story on any James Cameron film to understand that not all nightmare shoots automatically lead to box-office disasters. But in the publics mind at least, Waterworld was already toast. And yet, Id argue that theres a lot in the movie to likeif not love.

The ecological themes in Waterworld have proven to be prescient, and Rader and Twohys screenplay is a pretty remarkable feat of world-building. Some of it is hokey, to be sure. But even some of Blade Runners world-building is a little hokey, too. The high-seas action set pieces have a swashbuckling Indiana Jones vibe thanks to the films practical, pre-CGI stunts and James Newton Howards rollicking, trumpet-blast score. Costner, Tripplehorn, and Majorino are all affecting, even if the relationship between latter two feels a little too Ripley and Newt from Aliens. And the Road Warrior-meets-Brazil steampunk aesthetic is pure dystopian eye candy. Youve probably noticed Im referencing a lot of other (better) movies here, but when Waterworld isnt original, its at least borrowing from some primo sources. As for the budget, personally I dont care what a movie costs. Its not coming out of my pocket. But Ill say his for Reynolds and Costner, they put every dollar on the screen. Its as busy and evocative as a Bosch painting.

Esquire

Subscribe to Esquire Magazine

hearstmags.com

Honestly, the only thing that really doesnt work for me in Waterworld is Dennis Hopper as the leader of the Smokers, Deacon. In almost every phase of his career (even the black-out one), Hopper turned in performances that were masterclasses and others that were god-awful. This is one of the god-awful ones. Hes so corny and cartoony and over the top, he doesnt share scenes, he mugs them at gunpoint. Some of the other actors that were reportedly considered for Hoppers role include Gene Hackman, James Caan, Gary Oldman, Laurence Fishburne, Samuel L. Jackson, and Gary Busey. And I can picture all of them giving more interesting performances than Hopperseven Busey, whose Mr. Joshua in Lethal Weapon shouldnt be dismissed.

In the end, Waterworld would mark the beginning of a rough stretch for Costners charmed careerone that hit its nadir with yet another post-apocalyptic message movie, 1997s The Postman. But contrary to popular opinion, Waterworld wasnt the disaster its always been painted as in the press. Yes, the critics dogpiled on it and audiences in America mostly stayed away. But the movie ended up making back its production costs once international receipts, home video sales, and TV licensing were factored in. It wasnt exactly Titanic, but it wasnt Fishtar or Kevins Gate either. Im not saying that Waterworld should have been nominated for a bunch of Oscars. Not by a longshot. I guess what I am saying, though, is that if you give it an honest shot today, minus all of the white noise that accompanied its release 25 years ago, then I think youll end up agreeing that it at least didnt deserve as many Razzie nominations as it got.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

This commenting section is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page. You may be able to find more information on their web site.

Originally posted here:

Why Waterworld Was a Failure in the '90s But Is Actually Much Better Than We Remember - Esquire.com