105 of 117 people found the following review helpful
The greatist movie that never was,
By A Customer
This review is from: Waterworld [VHS] (VHS Tape)
Waterworld is the perfect example of a director's dream that was flushed down the toilet. It had the capability to be the best movie of all time, but it was killed by a bad editing staff. I'm sure most people have never seen it, but there is another version of WaterWorld that was never released for the public, except through an airing on ABC in 1998. The original cut for the movie is 4 and a half hours long, and it would have been longer. There was a slave trading camp scene that was never shot because the set was sunk by a storm. The editing crew decided that no body would want to sit in a theater for 4.5 hour, so they cut out 2 hours of dialog. Thats 2 hours of story sent to the trash. I think that it was originally planned to release the full length version, but the idea was dropped when it bombed at the box-office. This is one truely amasing movie, that had the makings to be a modern epic. All the sets actually were floating on water, and all the mariner's boat footage was shot at sea. The story was inspiring, and the plot made you open your eyes to what is happening in our world. At 4.5 hours, a budget of $150 mil, and over 5000 extras, it was a movie of power and prestige. Too bad no one will ever know.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-9 of 9 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 16, 2010 8:25:08 AM PDT
C.J. Hustwick says:
What's wrong with this film a 4.5 hour version can't help. Too funny!
Posted on Jan 3, 2011 4:32:47 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 3, 2011 4:33:08 PM PST
Scott Atkins says:
I agree with the original poster.
Posted on Mar 4, 2011 2:44:58 AM PST
Old School Gamer says:
That and the fact that all their sets were destroyed not once, but twice by ocean storms. This movie really could have been the most amazing sci-fi epic ever made and it's so sad that that time has past. Even if they tried to do it again today, it would be more effect driven and not have the real locations, effects, etc. that made this so ambitious at the time. Still a good movie, but it's just sad to think about sometimes.
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 21, 2011 4:49:59 PM PDT
B. Tweed DeLions says:
How do you know, Yale? Have you seen it?
Posted on Sep 21, 2011 4:55:10 PM PDT
B. Tweed DeLions says:
I'll bet I wound agree with you, A Customer. I didn't go see this movie when it hit the theaters because the reviews were so bad. Or, I put it off then never got around to it. I didn't see it until it came out in video. And I loved it! It wasn't perfect, but it made me feel like I was in another world. Not many movies make me feel that way.
I wish I could have seen the 4.5 hour version. Some people have short attention spans. Not me. I'm always bemused when people tell me a movie is too long. It has to be both bad *and* long for me to think it's too long. For example, I've sat through the entire Shogun miniseries at one sitting, at least 7 hours. I never lost interest. Maybe one day they will release a directors's cut version.
Posted on Apr 29, 2013 6:46:51 PM PDT
This review is 13+ years old, and somehow survived despite its factual errors.
The movie was 3.5 hours long before editing it down, and didn't have 5,000 extras. It was more like 300 crew.
The budget? Originally it was $65 million, then $75 million. The final budget was $100 million, and the final COST of the film was between $172 million and $175 million, making it the most expensive movie to date at the time of its release (almost three months late).
Definitely not a good review, with the factual errors, but the star rating is on target.
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 29, 2013 6:17:38 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 29, 2013 6:18:49 PM PDT
Michael Gmirkin says:
Factual errors or not, I still really liked this movie. Saw it the first time around. I never listen to reviewers. Some of my favorite movies, the reviewers have hated. I ignore them for the most part. Besides, I hate spoilers before going into a movie. Anyway, yeah, not perfect, kinda "grungy," but pretty decent. & all practical effects. None of the CGI so rife in movies today.
Anybody know if either of the Blu-Rays include the "extended cut" from the DVD? Or are they just "theatrical" releases. Debating whether to dump DVD after I converted to UV, or whether to keep it until they release a "complete" Blu-Ray? (I think the current crop of Waterworld Blu's are theatrical-only which is sad... Cheap studios!)
Wait, this is a review of the VHS? Ha! Awesome. Amazon, you dolts! Why are you bundling VHS reviews into the DVD / Blu pages' "reviews" section? *Sigh*
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2013 8:48:51 AM PST
I love this movie! Didn't see it at the theater probably because of the way it was advertised.
Anyway, now I'm trying to buy the FULL VERSION but I don't know who to believe. Amazon bundles all the reviews together so I can't tell if the extended version is the entire movie. I do know that the TV version cuts out some really important parts.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2014 4:22:21 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 12, 2014 4:22:49 AM PDT
The 2 DVD Extended Edition currently available is the edited-for-television 135-minute version. The longest version out there is 177-minutes, although it has never been commercially released...
‹ Previous 1 Next ›