I think there's been some counterintuitive championing of both WATERWORLD and THE POSTMAN as being kind of underrated and fun but I think even people who kind of like them should admit that they are not movies that should be expected to be popular with audiences or justify their budgets.
And of course a huge piece of Costner's bankability that allowed him to make those was from ROBIN HOOD PRINCE OF THIEVES which sucks and has to be the least remembered movie in my lifetime to be the #2 movie in the domestic box office for a year
I think where I'm at on WATERWORLD is that it's a bad movie that is frequently compelling and entertaining and occasionally even likeable because of the way in which it is bad bsky.app/profile/lawn...
Basically the same way I feel about the surprisingly-watchable but extremely stupid BATTLEFIELD EARTH, with the added compelling subplot of WATERWORLD's extreme budgetary wastefulness
i’m friends with a woman whose father was a producer on waterworld and whenever i would make ANY sort of joke about it she would get red-faced and say, “YOU KNOW, THAT MOVIE MADE MONEY, YOU KNOW”
I mean Waterworld is bad because it's hokey overproduced schlock, Battlefield Earth is recruitment propaganda for an abusive cult that also rails against a field of medicine that has improved the lives of millions if not billions.
I think it's okay to enjoy it for being stupid in light of the fact it was not an effective recruitment tool and in fact made their religion look ridiculous and silly
The amazing thing about Battlefield Earth is that it was adapted from the words of the cult founder, but they had to change a bunch of stuff. And all their changes were terrible.
I do wonder if they thought they'd get a chance to film the space Jews sequel.
Never successfully stayed awake through B:E or even got all that far into it, even with Riff Trax. Waterworld though, haven't had that problem. So I'll give it that
I mean, yes, but it was also a major tentpole movie about climate change that came out 30 years ago and then everyone forgot about the topic for several decades. That’s gotta count for something.
I love Waterworld, everything about is good except for the main story and the main character and most of the performances. I wish I was watching it right now.
Amazing comparison, makes perfect sense somehow. Except it’s actually harder to get through the rough parts of Gangs of New York, which are most of the parts without Daniel Day Lewis, because they take up so much of the running time.
On the other hand, the one time I watched it I felt a bit sorry for Dennis Hopper, and I knew I was watching an absolute ton of money being wasted on the "verite" of filming on the water, not in a tank with a greenscreen. I struggled to find it even "likeable."
If you like a post apocalyptic sci fi B movie and have already seen Cyborg, Cyborg 2, Blood of Heroes / Salute of the Jugger, and all the Mad Maxes, it's ok.
Yeah, it was a campy movie that was very obviously B-grade camp, but worked.
I enjoyed it at a teen, but now? I'd probably hate it because it's that B-grade camp.
"an entire generation" confused me until further down Chappelle was named. I thought it meant people too young to have been around for PoT and some other movie I wasn't aware of in the last 20 years had been made making fun of it.
Can confirm that my middle schooler was shown Prince of Thieves at a sleepover this past year, and when asked, "Do you know what that's even making fun of?" responded with "Yeeeessss!" But I'm not sure.
Robin Hood is hard to sell as much more than a low-stakes lark. Even with Rickman as the villain, he's not *that* dangerous, & Costner is abysmal at selling any of the drama.
IIRC they bought Rickman into the production by promising him he could play the Sheriff however he wanted, which makes his performance all the more interesting.
