Latest news with #Mariner
Tom's Guide
6 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Tom's Guide
You're all wrong — 'Waterworld' is a good movie
'Waterworld' is an ambitious sci-fi action movie with a unique premise, stunning visuals and intense action. But Kevin Costner's post-apocalyptic adventure is remembered as one of Hollywood's biggest flops and disappointments. 'Waterworld,' which celebrates its 30th anniversary this month, stars Costner as the Mariner, a drifter in a world covered in water. The Mariner reluctantly agrees to help Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and the young Enola (Tina Majorino) search for dry land while avoiding the villainous Deacon (Dennis Hopper), who believes the little girl holds the secret that will change the world. Upon further examination, 'Waterworld' is not nearly as bad as you think. It's not free from criticism, but there's often more positive than negative. What if the world was covered in water? 'The future... The polar ice caps have melted, covering the Earth with water. Those who survived have adapted to a new world,' the narrator says at the beginning. Recruiting the legendary Hal Douglas — arguably the most famous voice-over artist for trailer — to do the narration elevates the severity of the issue and raises the film's expectations. Would I have opened the film with Costner's Mariner converting his pee into drinking water? I would not. It does, however, establish the Mariner as a self-sufficient man, and as you come to learn more about him, the term 'creature' might be a better tag because of his gills and webbed feet. The concept of treating everyday items like they're worth more than gold was genius. Things we'd normally take for granted — like a jewelry box, dirt, plants, and crayons — are essential tools for survival. The most stunning scenes in 'Waterworld' are the chase sequences on water. Watching Costner maneuver up, down, and around his trimaran is riveting. Costner is the chef, and the boat is his kitchen. The fast-paced action pairs perfectly with James Newton Howard's adventurous and upbeat score. The two major set pieces at the atoll and the Exxon Valdez oil tanker are loud, explosive, and pulse-pounding. Costner's bread and butter are dramas, but he can hang as an action star in these scenes. Steven Spielberg, who went through hell and back to direct 'Jaws,' advised Reynolds and Costner not to film on open water. Reynolds and Costner did not listen to Spielberg's advice, which led to several problems. Reading the tea leaves, Costner had a specific vision for the film and assumed creative control, which led to Reynolds quitting before the release. While the relationship between Reynolds and Costner suffered, the film's visuals are breathtaking. Costner, who was undeniably one of the five biggest movie stars at the time, looks like an iconic hero whenever he's on the boat and staring out into the abyss. Reynolds perfectly captured the feelings of existential dread many would face had they never seen dry land. 'Waterworld' has its problems, from unintentional comedy and an underdeveloped romance to awkward sequencing and silly tone. Visuals are certainly not one of the aspects holding the film back. 'Waterworld' has always drawn comparisons to 'Mad Max,' George Miller's iconic dystopian franchise. For starters, screenwriter Peter Rader said that producer Brad Krevoy offered him a job in the late '80s to write a 'Mad Max' rip-off. By the time screenwriter David Twohy rewrote the screenplay in the early 1990s, 'Waterworld' was essentially 'Mad Max 2 on water.' 'Waterworld' isn't subtle about the 'Mad Max' similarities. The Mariner is a stand-in for Max Rockatansky; the ocean becomes the new Wasteland; the Deacon and the Smokers mirror Lord Humungus and his gang; and the Mariner's mission — find dry land for Helen and Enola — resembles Max fighting to protect the settlers on their journey to the northern paradise. I'm not saying 'Waterworld's' nautical action is better than the invigorating driving sequences in the 'Mad Max' franchise. However, I do believe these sailing scenes — especially when the Mariner has to outrun the Smokers — are enthralling examples of inspired filmmaking from Reynolds. Many of the reviews that panned 'Waterworld' cited how the Costner epic is a worse version of 'Mad Max.' If 'Mad Max' is an A-tier movie and 'Waterworld' is a B-level 'Mad Max,' why is that a bad thing? Do you think people sit down and watch 'Under Siege' and say, 'Well, I don't like it because it's the inferior version of 'Die Hard'?' Sorry, 'Alien,' but I have to dock points off the review because you're a worse version of 'Jaws.' Those are insane statements that no one would make. 'Waterworld' isn't as good as 'Under Siege' and 'Jaws,' but it has enough story and originality to deserve to lose the rip-off designation. Nothing like bad press in the lead-up to a movie to tank a film's chances of succeeding at the box office. Before the release in July 1995, the top story behind 'Waterworld' had nothing to do with anything shown on-screen. Money, particularly the budget, generated the most headlines. Universal initially authorized a $100 million budget. Logistical delays, on-set accidents, and poor weather pushed the shoot from 96 days to over 150 days. The budget skyrocketed to $175 million, the most expensive film ever made at that point. These rising costs led to the nicknames 'Fishtar' and 'Kevin's Gate,' a play on two of the most notorious flops ever, 'Ishtar' and 'Heaven's Gate.' Hollywood's classic rule says a film needs to make 2.5 times its budget to be considered profitable. That's not an official rule, but it's a good barometer of success. 'Waterworld' ended its theatrical run, grossing $264 million worldwide. Even math novices know that gross does not equal profit. Here's the not-so-secret truth about 'Waterworld': It eventually made a profit thanks to TV broadcast rights and home video sales, among other things. 'Waterworld' was also the ninth-highest-grossing movie of 1995. Studios today would sign up for a movie with 'Waterworld's' margins. Sequels have been commissioned for movies that have made way less than 'Waterworld.' Now, 30 years later, it's time to retire the 'Kevin's Gate' nicknames in favor of 'Kevin's Gate Made Money.' 'Waterworld' might have been a disappointment, but it was no disaster.
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
I watched Waterworld to see if it's as bad as I've always heard and I've got some takes
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. On July 28, 1995, Waterworld, the Kevin Costner-led sci-fi blockbuster, set sail. I was too young to see it when it first came out and by the time that I started watching older movies the few things I heard about Waterworld was generally how bad it was and that Costner's hero had webbed feet. So, as the movie's 30th anniversary is upon us — and it's streaming on Peacock in the US — I decided to finally give Waterworld a watch and see if what I've heard about it… holds water (sorry, couldn't resist). FYI, I'll be getting into some Waterworld SPOILERS below. Waterworld, directed by Kevin Reynolds (who also directed Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) from a script by Peter Rader and David Twohy, is set in a future where the polar ice caps have melted and covered the Earth in water. Costner plays a drifter simply known as the Mariner, a mutant with webbed feet, gills and a dislike of normal humans. However, he ends up having to protect a woman, Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn), and young girl, Enola (Tina Majorino), as they are being pursued by a maniacal Dennis Hopper (his character is named Deacon in the movie, but I just kept referring to him as Dennis Hopper) as the girl holds the secret to finding dry land. Looking at the actual reaction to Waterworld and its box office, I was actually surprised there wasn't as much vitriol as its reputation had led me to believe. While the movie does have a 'Rotten' score of 45% from critics and a 44% from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes, actually reading reviews from some of the biggest critics of 1995 — Roger Ebert, Todd McCarthy and Owen Gleiberman — the reactions were more middling than downright bad. At the box office, the movie earned $88 million in the US, which today wouldn't be a lot of money but was good enough for top 10 for the whole year of 1995. Having now watched the movie with my own two eyes, I can see where those critics were coming from. As pure blockbuster fare, there's some halfway decent action sequences and it's not an interminable way to spend two hours. But I wouldn't go as far as saying Waterworld is good or deserving of cult classic status, but it also isn't so bad it's fun to watch. It's more just blah. Waterworld desperately wants to be Mad Max with boats. Its bare bones plot basically checks all the boxes — loner comes across individuals that he reluctantly has to save from a crazy villain, eventually forming a bond before deciding he must move on and continue his loner ways. The biggest reason why that doesn't work as well here as it does with the Mad Max franchise is Costner. Most people today know Costner from his role as John Dutton in Yellowstone (also streaming on Peacock), where a scowl was basically his default setting, but his gruffness was part of the character's appeal. But in Waterworld, Costner's orneriness does him no favors. While the movie attempts to go through the motions of establishing why Costner's Mariner is this way and how his time with Tripplehorn and Majorino's characters eventually softens his heart, I just don't buy it. It's a flat performance and his character honestly struggles to be likeable for a lot of the movie. I'm just not sure if at the time, Costner could play this type of character. In the late 1980s and 1990s, Costner was best known for roles where he may have had some gruffness to him, but his natural charisma shone through (Bull Durham, Tin Cup) or when he's playing a much more affable character (Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves). Even if we look at his character in Yellowstone, or his rough cowboy in Horizon: An American Saga, the toughness comes alongside a noble quality that tells us this is someone we can respect even if they're not dolling out hugs. None of those qualities are present in Costner's performance as the Mariner. The other big issue with Waterworld is that there are details that just don't make any sense. For instance, it's supposedly been at least a few generations since the melting polar ice caps flooded the Earth, to the point where some believe that any remaining dry land is a myth. Not even the Mariner has found dry land, yet he has a plant (albeit a small one that's not looking so great) at the beginning of the movie and then comes across a tomato plant on the atoll he meets Helen and Enola on. What we see from that atoll, it's unlikely it was growing any tomato plants. Where did these plants come from, and wouldn't they be arguably the most precious things to these characters? But after we see them, they're barely acknowledged again. A couple of other things that I just found odd. I still don't understand how all they needed to do to understand the tattoo on Enola's back to find dry land. It whittles down to them translating the Chinese-looking symbols to be latitude and longitude coordinates and something involving the magnetic poles of the Earth being inverted, but it's not easily understandable in the context of the movie (this video does a deep dive to explain it, though). Another part comes at the very end, when the group gets to dry land and they find a small village where people once lived. There, they find two skeletons, and one of them suggests they bury them under the dirt, believing it was their way. Again, how would he know this? It's been generations since anyone they knew would have been on dry land and the skeletons they find are simply lying on a bed, there's no evidence that these people dug graves, or any that we see at least. This one is nitpicky, admittedly, but it's just another detail that wasn't thought out or properly explained. There are a few things that worked for the movie, particularly Hopper's fun performance. Still, Waterworld's biggest fault is that it's middling at best, with Costner unable to give us a main character worth rooting for. I wouldn't put it up amongst some of the worst movies I've seen, but it's not one I'm going to have much desire to ever watch again. However, if you disagree and actually love Waterworld, or want to try it for yourself to see if you agree or not with my takes, then you can stream Waterworld on Peacock in the US; in the UK the movie is available via digital on-demand. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
‘Waterworld' turns 30: Hollywood flop to cult classic — and its forgotten Oscar nomination
Waterworld, the famously soggy epic starring Kevin Costner and directed by Kevin Reynolds, turns 30 today. Released on July 28, 1995, the film remains one of the most notorious Hollywood productions of its era, making waves for its astronomical budget and behind-the-scenes turmoil. Dubbed "Kevin's Gate" by the press, it faced a storm of negative attention long before audiences ever set sail. But in the three decades since its debut, Waterworld has gone from box-office cautionary tale to cult classic, with a devoted fan base, a legacy in live entertainment, and even a surprising brush with Oscar gold. Set in a post-apocalyptic future where the polar ice caps have melted and Earth is submerged in water, Waterworld follows a mysterious drifter known as the Mariner (Costner), a gill-sporting loner navigating a flooded wasteland of floating cities, pirates, and mythical dry land. The film was one of the most expensive movies ever made at the time, with a bloated budget of $175 million — an astronomical figure in the mid-'90s — and plagued by production issues ranging from storms that destroyed sets to on-set tension and endless rewrites. Critics were lukewarm at best, and audiences were initially cool to the film's dark tone and unconventional premise. Opening to a $21 million weekend at the box office, Waterworld was quickly labeled a flop. Although it eventually earned back its budget through strong international sales and home video revenues, the damage to its reputation had already been done. Today, Waterworld is viewed with fresh eyes — part environmental warning, part ambitious sci-fi Western, part misunderstood gem. What was once mocked for its bloated budget and outlandish premise is now appreciated for its practical effects, world-building, and relentless creativity. The film's stunt work and set design, once buried under headlines about delays and dollar signs, are now cited as examples of bold, big-swing filmmaking that would be nearly impossible in today's CGI-heavy studio landscape. What many people have forgotten — or never knew — is that Waterworld was nominated for an Academy Award. At the 68th Oscars in 1996, it earned a nomination for Best Sound, alongside Apollo 13, Batman Forever, Braveheart, and Crimson Tide. It didn't win — Apollo 13 took the statue — but the nomination was a nod to the film's impressive audio design, which brought the crashing waves, roaring jet skis, and chaotic seafaring battles to immersive life. Even more enduring than its Oscar nod is Waterworld 's presence at Universal Studios. The Waterworld: A Live Sea War Spectacular stunt show, launched the same year as the film, has outlasted many of Universal's most beloved attractions. With explosions, jet-ski stunts, and death-defying leaps, the live show has become a fan favorite and a testament to the film's lasting entertainment value. It continues to draw massive crowds in Hollywood, Japan, and Singapore, proving that while the film may have floundered financially, its spectacle has stood the test of time. On its 30th anniversary, Waterworld lives on as more than just "the movie that cost too much." It's a case study in Hollywood ambition, a cult favorite revered for its practical ingenuity, and a cheeky punchline-turned-point-of-pride that stands as a reminder of what happens when filmmakers swing for the fences. Looking back, perhaps Waterworld was never a disaster — it was simply ahead of its time.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
20-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
The Mission: Tim Weiner's book explains how the CIA lost its way
Throughout The Mission, Weiner hammers on an agency that seems to be repeatedly blinded by its sense of American supremacy NYT THE MISSION: CIA in the 21st Century by Tim Weiner Published by Mariner 452 pages $35 On June 21, President Trump took to the airwaves to announce that his secret directive for the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities had just been carried out. 'Tonight,' he proclaimed, 'I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success,' with those facilities 'completely and totally obliterated.' Trump's triumphalist tone was swiftly undercut by a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analysis that found the airstrikes were likely to set back Iran's nuclear capabilities by a mere few months. The furious president not only doubled down on his 'obliterated' claim but insisted that further analysis would confirm it. Sure enough, his Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director, John Ratcliffe, soon scurried forward to cast doubt on the DIA's assessment and to insist that 'new intelligence' from an unidentified source confirmed the sites had been 'severely damaged,' not quite Trump's adverb of choice, but close. Nothing on the ground is any clearer now, but to many observers one thing is: These events served as yet another example of the rank politicisation of America's pre-eminent intelligence agency. As Tim Weiner demonstrates in The Mission, this trend is likely only to accelerate with Trump in the White House. Both as a one-time reporter for The New York Times and as a book author, Weiner has made tracking the fluctuating fortunes of the American intelligence community his life's work. His masterly 'Legacy of Ashes,' detailing the CIA's first half-century, won a National Book Award in 2007. The Mission picks up where that book left off, narrating the agency's history beyond the fall of communism. It is exhaustive and prodigiously researched, but also curiously ungainly. The story begins in the 1990s. Grasping for a new mission in the wake of the Cold War, the CIA played a supporting role in the war on drugs, and then, after the 9/11 attacks, the war on terror. Agents hunted for the Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and tortured high-value prisoners in hopes of gaining information on future attacks. Much of the testimony, Weiner writes, was gathered by a quickly raised army of often inexperienced interrogators. At the same time, Weiner notes, intelligence officers often felt their intelligence was beside the point. As one former CIA Iraq operations chief insists, 'These guys would have gone to war if Saddam had a rubber band and a paper clip.' Throughout The Mission, Weiner hammers on an agency that seems to be repeatedly blinded by its sense of American supremacy. In the past decade and a half, the CIA has been caught off guard again and again, including in China, where the country's intelligence services apparently excel at rooting out and killing American assets. The agency was also back-footed by the onset of the Arab Spring uprisings in 2010, Weiner writes, because US spies depended on the accuracy of information coming from aging counterparts within the dictatorial regimes that were about to crumble in the unrest. Weiner saves his greatest scorn, however, for the first Trump administration, detailing both the vast web of contacts between his campaign staff and Russian intelligence officials as well as Trump's subsequent efforts to bring the CIA to heel, even as he leaned on his intelligence advisers to vet his rash proposals. 'How would we do,' Trump's first CIA director, Mike Pompeo, later recalled the president musing, 'if we went to war with Mexico?' There is something simultaneously illuminating and saddening in contemplating the course the CIA has travelled during the past quarter-century. In this regard, one episode Weiner recounts stands out. In 2007, the CIA gathered compelling evidence that Syria, no friend of the US, was well on its way to building a nuclear weapon. The news set off a spirited debate within the Bush administration over whether it should launch a pre-emptive strike to eliminate the site. The idea was vehemently opposed by one of Bush's closest advisers — 'We don't do Pearl Harbors' — and the bombing scheme was shelved (though it was taken over by a country willing to do the job: Israel). Compare that with Trump's 'Pearl Harbor' assault on Iran's nuclear facilities even though the CIA and almost every other Western intelligence agency had concluded that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. The attack starkly underscored just how shamelessly the American intelligence community has already succumbed to Trump's will. In this regard, Weiner's warnings about the peril facing both the CIA and the US seem prophetic.
USA Today
15-07-2025
- Sport
- USA Today
Cooper Kupp congratulates Cal Raleigh on his Home Run Derby victory
For the first time in the history of baseball, a catcher has won the Home Run Derby... and he is a Seattle Mariner! On Monday night, Cal Raleigh's historic season just became a little more iconic with the Big Dumper earning a Home Run Derby championship, becoming the first Mariner since Ken Griffey Jr. did so three times during the 1990's. Raleigh barely - and quite literally - inched out Brent Rooker in round one, having hit tiebreaking ball 0.08 inches further than the Athletics' star. Raleigh then created insurmountable leads in the semifinal and championship round against Oneil Cruz of the Pirates and Junior Caminero of the Rays to win it all. Of course, Raleigh's neighbors to the north, the Seattle Seahawks, certainly noticed his historic performance. However, the Seahawks franchise was not the only ones to celebrate the Big Dumper's achievement. Fellow Seattle sports figure Cooper Kupp took to Twitter as well to praise the American League MVP contender. Cal Raleigh, and the Mariners, will be back in action this coming Friday night for a crucial divisional series against the loathsome Houston Astros. Seattle (51-45) is five games back of Houston for first place in the AL West, and are holding a 1.5 lead over the Tampa Bay Rays for the final Wild Card spot. The Mariners have an opportunity to make up some serious ground on the Astros, and will need every home run Raleigh can deliver this weekend.
