Monday, January 12, 2009


Spur of the moment decision got us to watch Waterworld on Saturday.

Myself, my wife and my awesome friend J got together for a nice dinner followed by a screening of this film.

It being all about liquid substances, we decided to play the Waterworld Drinking Game

I do think it made the film viewable, but good lord did we get schnockered.

Thoughts on the actual film (spoilers filled, but its a 13 year old movie so no complaining.)

I had actually never seen it. After doing so, I am not quite sure I needed to see it. It was a terrible terrible film. And I like bad movies. It was very disjointed and horribly acted* I think it was only released to help recoup the loss. It was basically The Road Warrior (i.e. Mad Max 2) on water. However, The Road Warrior was an awesome piece of scifi action, Waterworld was a bloated boring mess.

I know it's "just a movie" but when you base your whole premise on some unbelievable science, I find it hard to swallow. Lets pick a few nits shall we?

-So the bad guys operate out of the Exxon Valdez (regardless of the fact that in the real world that ship was sold and renamed after its incident) and have a finite supply of crude. HOW THE HELL DID THEY REFINE IT? Even if they had the ability to refine it... if this is supposed to be so far in the future, who would have the knowledge to do so?

-If paper is such a valuable resource, why do the bad guys constantly smoke cigarettes (which again, would be very very old)?

-If the dead people at the end of the movie are supposed to be the kids parents, how they hell did she leave the land?

-The kid can't swim? YOU LIVE IN A WORLD COVERED BY WATER. NOT KNOWING HOW TO SWIM IS NOT POSSIBLE. Fear of the water or not, that just seems a bit too out there.

-I do believe that even if all of the polar ice melted, it would not cover the entire land mass of the earth. Drastically change it? Sure.

-Oars on the Valdeez? I do believe that the displacement of such a huge vessel would negate any force produced by rowing.

*Kudos must be given to Dennis Hopper who is always good no matter the role (ex. Speed) and the little girl in the film. But when your 10 year old actress is the shining beacon of a good performance in the film you know you are in trouble.

No comments:

Post a Comment