Waterworld

No está nada mal, al contrario, una bonita aventura exótica con una temática excelente. Si la hubiera dirigido Steven Spielberg, Waterworld podría haber sido una memorable aportación al género. Pero aun así, a pesar del deleznable último tercio, no deja de ser una narrativa rimbombante y bastante inteligente del entretenimiento de Hollywood, que, a diferencia de muchas otras, puedo poner una y otra vez, sin aburrirme ni ofenderme. Y ¡Kevin Costner encaja a la perfección! (03.01.2003)

I am ultimately ruthlessly reducing my original two stars to one. It's not that it's an entirely catastrophic disaster, but generally, I incline more toward clever movies and Waterworld unequivocally belongs to the second category. If it had been possible to maintain such a level of self-irony as the devilishly exaggerating Dennis Hopper, who was evidently enjoying himself, I would have been much more generous because then it would have been an entertaining and stylish rubbish, but Kevin Costner evidently took it too seriously for the mess he actually created. For those who just want to relax with the film, who are after some action and spectacle, it doesn't have to be a bad choice at all and they can comfortably add two stars. Overall impression: 25%. (21.12.2016)

The theme is certainly impressive and the atmosphere of the post-apocalyptic water world is sympathetically exotic... What kills the film are terribly cheap replicas, terribly cheap action scenes and sometimes very cheap tricks. However, the expedition is generous and here and there, everything goes the way it is supposed to. Kevin is decent in the role of the amphibious vagabond, but the sweet-romantic rebirth of his personality really belongs somewhere in the B-movie category. If it weren't for the budget, this film would firmly belong there, but from a certain point of view it's actually quite an interesting spectacle. But the film truly is naive. (13.08.2007)

The second collaboration between Kevin Reynolds and Kevin Costner didn't receive as much recognition as the first one (Robin Hood), but it's not completely bad. The screenplay is inventive, and the idea of a flooded world is pleasantly mysterious. The discovery of dryland is thrilling, and Costner is absolutely perfect in his role of a sea wolf. The action sequences are incredibly well-directed, and the overall dynamics of the film are more than good. Perhaps the only downside is the excessively explosive ending with several typical heroically awkward moments, but it can be overlooked. The underwater scene is fantastically chilling, as are the final five minutes. Although this film, which cost 175 million dollars, didn't show us anything groundbreaking, it is a relatively interesting and inventive Hollywood blockbuster, where I am willing to forgive some of the excesses. (27.05.2006)

The first two acts are great, and if the whole film was like that, I wouldn't hesitate to reach for the highest rating. But the botched ending with the "liberation" scene from the tanker completely spoils the good impression. The scene where Costner runs through the tanker and sets it on fire is very bad, and what followed, including the bungee jumping, gave me fits of laughter. Also, the over-acting Dennish Hopper wasn’t a very fortunate choice, either. (21.07.2002)