This movie has been panned in several aspects by many. I first watched it on TV, missing the "big screen" effect of seeing it in a theater. The cinematography was well done, considering all of the problems that are inherent is trying to film a futuristic story among only four sets, that are essentially minimal in design.
As far as my personal objections go, there are only two. The film took far too long to handle a rather simplistic subject -- the search for the "dry land" that so eluded everyone concerned. The other major fault is one of attitude. Costner is good looking and, almost always, is shown as quite handsome in his various roles. But, Costner seems able to play just one role -- Costner. He is a one-dimensional actor who is incapable of carrying any kind of accent for more than a single short sentence. Why doesn't he regularly employ a dialog coach when the role calls for it?
He also never gives up anything about himself or the role particular role he is playing, no hint of "inner being" which could make a connection with the audience. The result, at least in this particular story, is that I had a very hard time generating any sympathy for him at all. I simply couldn't have cared less whether or not he found his dry land at all.
This made for a really boring time, and I had to force myself to stay tuned for the entire excessive length of a story about a character that never got to first base. Too bad, because I think this subject could have been handled much better than it was. Another Costner excessive epic was "The Postman", made a year or so later, which felt much to me like just another telling of the Water World story on a dry land locale. Both were Luke warm at best and way too long in length. Even Dances With Wolves (1991) had the same feel, and was only saved by the performances of the Lakota Sioux warriors and the breathtaking camera shots of the scenery.
I would recommend both movies for watching as rentals, but only if there are no other choices available and you have a lot of time to kill.
As far as my personal objections go, there are only two. The film took far too long to handle a rather simplistic subject -- the search for the "dry land" that so eluded everyone concerned. The other major fault is one of attitude. Costner is good looking and, almost always, is shown as quite handsome in his various roles. But, Costner seems able to play just one role -- Costner. He is a one-dimensional actor who is incapable of carrying any kind of accent for more than a single short sentence. Why doesn't he regularly employ a dialog coach when the role calls for it?
He also never gives up anything about himself or the role particular role he is playing, no hint of "inner being" which could make a connection with the audience. The result, at least in this particular story, is that I had a very hard time generating any sympathy for him at all. I simply couldn't have cared less whether or not he found his dry land at all.
This made for a really boring time, and I had to force myself to stay tuned for the entire excessive length of a story about a character that never got to first base. Too bad, because I think this subject could have been handled much better than it was. Another Costner excessive epic was "The Postman", made a year or so later, which felt much to me like just another telling of the Water World story on a dry land locale. Both were Luke warm at best and way too long in length. Even Dances With Wolves (1991) had the same feel, and was only saved by the performances of the Lakota Sioux warriors and the breathtaking camera shots of the scenery.
I would recommend both movies for watching as rentals, but only if there are no other choices available and you have a lot of time to kill.