What a waste of my time!!!

Did you people see the same film I saw?

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

If you're looking for something to satisfy that Mad Max tooth, this will definitely be the film you're looking for. Although it hasn't aged well making it not as graphically pristine as up to date cgi, the film carries loads of practical effects proving it's intricate worth. Sometimes it feels a bit empty but what can we expect from a world that has been covered up by water leaving sparseness. Everything is brilliant in this film from set design to the acting. The makeup is a little shoddy and the sound is very average with a backup for an ordinary adventure soundtrack but overall it is worth the watch!

(I don't really think that I spoiler anything, but I just wanted to make sure)I love apocalyptic movies - I really do. It is the extreme contrast to our current reality which makes them so interesting. So this was a plus on watching "Waterworld".I've watched Waterworld for the first time about 10 years ago and whenever I think back I have a good feeling about the movie. That's why I watched it again in 2016. And boy - it didn't disappoint. The story as an apocalyptic movie is great, but the atmosphere is exceptional well done and gripping.As for the acting goes - I'm not really an expert in it even though I've watched a lot of movies in my 23 years - but I had the feeling that it was superb.But what I really liked about Waterworld is the connection between Mariner (Kevin Costner) and the little kid. Mariner who became very coldhearted, egoistic and skeptical to other humans through his ruff time on the water for many years, learns to trust and even developed feelings/emotion for other human-beings through his interaction with the little girl. He is the typical "hard shell,soft core"-man.Last but not least - "older" movies - around 1985-2005 (Lethal Weapons, Rush Hour etc etc) have this realistic feeling/vibe which I really miss on current blockbusters. They all look too much enhanced through CGI.

I really never got why this film was slated the way it was. I've just sat through 2 hours of Mad Max Fury Road which got good reviews and isn't half as good as this. The story is believable, the effects good and the pace of the film is excellent. This is really a mad max on wheels minus some of the real grit and gore. Saying that it's an enjoyable film. It is Hollywood No debating and doesn't have real depth but what really do you want from an action movie? I've always thought this was a good film albeit a little cheesy. Over the past 37 years I have realised the critics know squat! They rate films because they think they will be noticed for rating off the cuff and small budget films. If you want to be entertained for a few hours you could do a lot worse. A solid 7.5/10.

"Waterworld" occupies that awkward space between so-bad-it's-good and terrible. Neither, but somehow bo- ... no, still neither. Its notoriety as a colossal flop notwithstanding, there's nothing here to revile (aside from some garish set design) and it's not really much more than a pretty dull ripoff of "The Road Warrior". Despite the post-apocalyptic setting, this is surprisingly vanilla - and the only thing that really feels alive here is Dennis Hopper, out of place though he may be.This is a movie whose title has become shorthand for box office disaster, so I was expecting (hoping for) something I can have some ironic fun with. But it's played laser-straight and makes me want to pop in a Mad Max movie instead.Where's the fun in that? 5/10