Amazon.com

Let's be honest: this 1995 epic isn't nearly as bad as its negative publicity led us to expect. At the time it was the most expensive Hollywood production in history (it had a Titanic-sized $200 million budget), and the film arrived in theaters with so much controversy and negative gossip that it was an easy target for ridicule. The movie itself, a flawed but enjoyable post-apocalypse thriller, deserves better. Waterworld stars Kevin Costner as the Mariner, a lone maverick with gills and webbed feet who navigates the endless seas of Earth after the complete melting of the polar ice caps. The Mariner has been caged like a criminal when he's freed by Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and enlisted to help her and a young girl (Tina Majorino) escape from the Smokers, a group of renegade terrorists led by Dennis Hopper in yet another memorably villainous role. It is too bad the predictable script isn't more intelligent, but as a companion piece to The Road Warrior, this seafaring stunt-fest is adequately impressive. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (115)

Engrossing story suffers from card-board antagonists.
"Waterworld" had a lot going for it, and I'm a sucker for post-apocalyptic disaster films/novels. Although the premise of the polar ice-caps melting and covering the Earth is a little far-fetched (I doubt all but Mount Everest would be covered as depicted in the movie), I forgave that improbability and enjoyed the film anyway. What I didn't really enjoy that much were the card-board characters representing the "smokers", although I have to admit, Dennis Hopper did give the movie some comic relief. If the movie would have stayed primarily on the boat and dealt a little more with the interesting relationship developing between the mariner and the woman and little girl, and gave a little less time to the "smokers", I'd have enjoyed it more. As the movie played out, I often thought I was watching Mad Max on water. With that said, I have to admit the actions scenes were first-rate, and some were quite amazing.

Actually, I enjoyed the expanded television version more than I enjoyed the theatrical release. The simple reason is because they added needed scenes (not action scenes) to round out the story. Between 1 and 10, I give the theatrical release and the VHS I purchased a 6, or a 3 star rating. The tv version, I give a 7, or a 4 star rating. (I should have taped the tv version).

Better than it's given credit for
Waterworld drowned in its own negative pre-release hype, which I along with pretty much everyone else bought into at the time (a similar set of circumstances rightfully crushed Gigli, which is so much worse than this film as to be in its own category). Upon age and reflection, Waterworld stands on its own as a coherent, enjoyable apocalypse film. It simply doesn't look like something that $200+ million was spent on (much of which went into rebuilding set pieces after a storm, so it had no effect on the look of the film). If you can get past whatever expectation that budget might have placed for you in terms of shiny effects, this is a pretty darn good movie. Costner is believable and entertaining as the Mariner, and the supporting cast does a good job. Hopper has fun chewing the scenery as the Deacon, leader of a huge pack of scavengers called Smokers due to the fact their vehicles and industry run off crude oil carried in their massive mobile oil tanker home.
Most people bash Waterworld because of either its huge price tag, which didn't "deliver," or because they feel it is simply a rehash of Road Warrior but on the ocean. I believe there are strong counterarguments to both these claims. I love Road Warrior, but I hardly believe it invented the genre; there were films coming out 25 years earlier that had the same theme. An apocalypse film is usually the only way to posit an alternative reality movie without having to bloat up on futuristic robots and/or aliens (the other possibility is a caveman film, which we all know will be a resounding success). Costner's film parallels Road Warrior really only to the extent both involve a lone warrior in a savage post-apocalyptic world, which is how every single other film in the genre is also set up. It basically IS the genre.

Waterworld takes its place in that genre quite adeptly. It has plenty of interesting but disposable side villians, neat gadgets and surprises, a cynical central adventurer with lots of deadly skills, and surprisingly good dialogue. Heck even the annoying child actor gets thrown overboard when she becomes too annoying. If only The Phantom Menace writers were taking notes. Likewise, the action in this film proves satisfying, as it is CGI free.

Waterworld was a failure at the time, but it has aged well and deserves another look. It's not as good as Road Warrior, no, but what is? I'd take a screening of Waterworld over most of the recent "summer" action films (Hulk, Daredevil, S.W.A.T. etc) of this past summer any day of the week.

Hello? Am I the only one that understands what Fiction means
First I want to state that I really enjoyed this movie. I liked it's post apocolypitic view of the world covered in water. The story was done well and the look and feel of a watered down Mad Max was creatively done. I enjoyed it from start to finish.

Now on to all the people that apparently do not know what ficiton is. This movie is fiction! That means it's not real or based on total possible reality! So all these people saying, it's not possible for a guy to have gills, or that one scene just couldn't be possible, go get an A&E special if you want reality. If you find yourself repeating to yourself "It's only a movie", go get an imagination too!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but sometimes I wonder how people allow their ideas to be skewed by the majority.

By the way after the 4th viewing I just barely noticed Dry Land is Mt. Everest!

Um... Yeah
In the scene where the little girl is in the water and Kevin Costner bungees down to get her, even if Costner had not retrieved the girl, the two water-jetting enemies would have crashed into each other anyway.

I just wanted to point out this humerous fact, I'm sorry.

They should release the extended version
I first saw this movie as a rental of the theatrical version. It was okay. But I liked it much better when I saw the extended version on broadcast tv. About 45 minutes of footage is added to the extended version, which actually helps the movie a great deal in my opinion. While the extended version is shown on sci-fi channel from time to time (in a four hour time slot), it is not available on video. Nor is the additional footage contained on the DVD release - to my knowledge. So they should release the extended version on DVD, which would be worth buying. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Originally filmed in IMAX format, The Discoverers features some astoundingly spectacular footage all centering around the act of discovery. The story of the great navigator Magellan's search for a passage to the Pacific is presented with film of spectacular sunsets and scenery, and a visit to a re-creation of Sir Isaac Newton's laboratory while he refracts lightwith lamps and prisms is equally beautiful. The various vignettes, which range from a child and her father discovering paintings of bison painted on cave ceilings thousands of years ago to a scientist on a team analyzing data sent back from a probe sent to the planet Venus, don't proceed in a linear path. But that's the whole idea. The production was inspired by the Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Discoverers by Daniel J. Boorstin, and the goal was to put the viewer alongside those who explore the unknown as they experience the joyous moments of discovery. There is some serious science presented in the course of the film, but fear not, it's all presented in a highly entertaining manner. All that's required is to simply sitback and immerse yourself in the utterly gorgeous cinematography. --Robert J. McNamara ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Awful... !!@
The picture quality is not as good as the other titles.... and the storyline is ridiculous....Don;t waste your money on this one...

I "Discovered"... not to buy this.
I didn't know there's such thing as a bad IMAX movie until I came across this.

Not the greatest of the IMAX titles
I have pretty much all of the WMVHD disks (including the more obscure ones like Muffin Man and Step Into Liquid).The film transfer of this title isn't as crisp as the other IMAX titles, and in general, the cinematography is not as stunning.Still nice, but it just doesn't compare to the others.The story line is a little campy, but they do a good job of covering a lot of ground, from 1600's to the future, showing how explorers risk everything to break new ground.

The film is an accurate reflection of the book...
... a disjointed, disjuncted pastiche.

An even worse book of the same ilk is Connections by James Burke.

Lost Discoverers
I purchased this DVD as a teaching aid. It is worthless from a pedagogical point of view. It is nothing more than a pastiche of disconnected topics. It displays none of the intelligence nor logic of Boorstein's book. It's not even very entertaining-- a colossal waste of time, money, and film. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Richard Gaddis (John C. Reilly) catches young Rodrigo (Diego Luna) conning some casino waitresses out of chump change and decides the guy is just the right chump to help him run other local scams. The slyest thing about this diverting remake of the 2000 Argentinian heist flick Nine Queens is, in fact, how much everybody seems to have a scam in the works--there isn’t a single honest soul in sinful, sunbeaten Los Angeles. Richard and Rodrigo soon get caught up in a big swindle concerning some counterfeit currency, a game that ensnares Gaddis’ angrily estranged sister Valerie (Maggie Gyllenhaal), the concierge of the hotel that’s hosting the guys’ main mark (Peter Mullan, coolly brutish). What happens next isn’t really anything new--The Sting, anyone?--and the requisite final twist might not hold up to closer inspection, but director Gregory Jacobs knows how to lie back and it keep it gliding affably along (he served as an assistant director on nearly all of Steven Soderbergh’s films). The performers all hook into the low-key vibe: Reilly’s schlub persona fits snugly into his small-time grifter role, while Luna and Gyllenhaal seem more simmering and sexy in each new shot. The movie is as entertaining and inessential as L.A. itself. --Steve Wiecking ... Read more

Reviews (15)

Definitely Worth Looking For
A very nice film, devoted mainly to two central characters: Richard Gaddis (played by John C. Reilly) and Rodrigo (played by Diego Luna).The film traces a 24-hour period in which the two characters first meet, and subsequently have an opportunity to form partnership.Filmed on a shoestring budget, the movie had only limited released; however, I highly recommend viewing it on rental.

Richard is a con-man in every sense of the word, he's not to be trusted; even his past partners have run the risk of being cheated by him.Rodrigo is a petty thief, and works the small con.Their paths converge when Rodrigo is caught trying to cheat waitresses out of change in a local casino in which Richard is also at.Richard, posing as a local police officer, steps in and takes Rodrigo under custody.Once outside the casino, Richard convinces Rodrigo into working with him.

After a series of short cons, in an attempt to build trust and confidence in one another; Richard is contacted by his sister Valerie (played by Maggie Gyllenhaal) in regards to one of Richard's previous partners making contact with her (Valerie) at her job as concierge at the Biltmore Hotel.As it turns out, Richard and Rodrigo are placed into a situation with an opportunity to score the big con.It seems that Richard's former partner, Ochoa, was in the middle of a six-figured con when an impending heart attack struck him incapable of completing the transaction; he is no longer able to complete the deal.Furthermore, Ochoa's "pigeon" departs the U.S. in the next 24-hours due to his Visa expiration; therefore, Ochoa must rely on Richard to finish the con.

What happens next are a sequence of events of "How not to orchestrate the big con", which includes losing the counterfeit item being used for the setup.Richard and Rodrigo are forced to rely on one another whole-heartedly in order to accomplish the final swindle, which included liquidating both their total assets to front the cash required for a duplicate counterfeit item.

The film places you into mind to the con-man, and all the antics required to accomplish the long con.There are no high speed chases, or large scale pyrotechnic involved in this film; just plenty of dialogue and no stop conniving.With the added bonus of a plot twist ending, the film is quite entertaining.

http://farisreel.com

Nothing too special here
Criminal was a good little independant film with a couple of con men doing a job. The plot twists and turns are slightly predictable, though I have to admit that I didn't forsee the ending. Well, not exactly how it ended. I saw some aspects of it coming, but not all of it.

There are basically no special features on this disc. So if you pick it up or rent it, don't expect any behind-the-scenes info. You're getting nothing more than the movie itself.

Nothing too special here. A decent rental, but don't bother purchasing it. You're better off with something of more substance.

Formula Fare
I read in the NY Times that John C. Reilly is playing Stanley Kowalski in a production of "Streetcar Named Desire."Stanley?Mitch, maybe, but never Stanley.Not that Reilly isn't a terrific actor.He's proved himself in a series of scene-stealing supporting roles in films like "Hard Eight" and "Boogie Nights."He just doesn't have the heft of a Brando.But I like him fine as Karl Malden.He plays a Malden-sized character in "Criminal," a first film by Gregory Jacobs, the assistant director on the "Oceans" films.And that's the problem.This is the kind of preposterous "heist" film (apparently based on an Argentinian original) that requires a willing suspension of disbelief.Maybe if it boasted the eye candy (not to mention the heft) of a George Clooney in the lead role, and, instead of Diego Luna and Maggie Gyllenhaal, Benecio Del Toro and Julie Roberts in support, you'd be willing to overlook the holes in the screenplay.As it is, you aren't likely to find any of these characters evil or glamorous enough to care what happens to them.Instead, you'll be left to marvel that two such small-timers as Richard (Reilly) and Rodrigo (Luna) might even get close to a "sting" on the scale of the one outlined here.That said, I certainly like Diego Luna as an actor and wish him well in his career.He was terrific in "Y Tu Mama Tambien."Maggie Gyllenhaal, too, has done better work.And John C. Reilly gives it all he's got.He certainly makes a convincing louse.But he needs to go back to playing Mitch, and leave Stanley to the Brandos.

almost works
This is a caper film that would work, if John C. Reilly weren't such a smart and talented actor.

See, for the twist at the end to really be both shocking and fun, you've got to hate his character. I mean, he is a jerk who has tried to screw over everyone else in the movie at one point or another.Shouldn't it be satisfying that they all manage to collectively screw him over together?

Yes, but... Reilly's too good.He gives his character a little too much depth, a little too much humanity for us to cheer as he is carted off to jail. When he has to tell his little brother about the lawsuit, you feel his pain.When his sister demands her cut and his is down to nothing, he's on the edge of tears and desperation and you feel like this must be more than just a scam for him - something's at stake, even if we do not know what it is.This is good acting.Too good.We don't want to care about villains; we don't want to see them as people with problems and loves and fears.In the end, instead of feeling satisfied that the SOB got what was coming to him, I felt conflicted - sure, he's an SOB, but I still want him to win, at least a little bit.

Copycat movie.
This is so much like the recent, good grifter movie of last year, "Nine Queens," I stopped it midway through, with full knowledge of the eventual outcome and how it all would work out.

The young good-looking Mexican up-and-comer from "Y Mama Tu Tambien" stars in this one, unfortunately wearing uncomplimentary jeans throughout the movie, in order to bolster his straight-dude creds, and acting like some odd kind of mix between a choirboy and a grifter. You just know something bad's going to happen to his older, uglier cynical grifter partner, whose wicked comments against family and morality set him up for major rue from the clue canoe. Guess what, most of what's really bad has already been applied to the poor guy's mug.

Watch "Nine Queens" instead and get the dope straight from the (albeit foreign) source. This was just a shade too Hollywood for me, smacking of industry standard fare throughout. Where's the freaking originality?! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Let's be honest: this 1995 epic isn't nearly as bad as its negative publicity led us to expect. At the time it was the most expensive Hollywood production in history (it had a Titanic-sized $200 million budget), and the film arrived in theaters with so much controversy and negative gossip that it was an easy target for ridicule. The movie itself, a flawed but enjoyable post-apocalypse thriller, deserves better. Waterworld stars Kevin Costner as the Mariner, a lone maverick with gills and webbed feet who navigates the endless seas of Earth after the complete melting of the polar ice caps. The Mariner has been caged like a criminal when he's freed by Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and enlisted to help her and a young girl (Tina Majorino) escape from the Smokers, a group of renegade terrorists led by Dennis Hopper in yet another memorably villainous role. It is too bad the predictable script isn't more intelligent, but as a companion piece to The Road Warrior, this seafaring stunt-fest is adequately impressive. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (115)

Engrossing story suffers from card-board antagonists.
"Waterworld" had a lot going for it, and I'm a sucker for post-apocalyptic disaster films/novels. Although the premise of the polar ice-caps melting and covering the Earth is a little far-fetched (I doubt all but Mount Everest would be covered as depicted in the movie), I forgave that improbability and enjoyed the film anyway. What I didn't really enjoy that much were the card-board characters representing the "smokers", although I have to admit, Dennis Hopper did give the movie some comic relief. If the movie would have stayed primarily on the boat and dealt a little more with the interesting relationship developing between the mariner and the woman and little girl, and gave a little less time to the "smokers", I'd have enjoyed it more. As the movie played out, I often thought I was watching Mad Max on water. With that said, I have to admit the actions scenes were first-rate, and some were quite amazing.

Actually, I enjoyed the expanded television version more than I enjoyed the theatrical release. The simple reason is because they added needed scenes (not action scenes) to round out the story. Between 1 and 10, I give the theatrical release and the VHS I purchased a 6, or a 3 star rating. The tv version, I give a 7, or a 4 star rating. (I should have taped the tv version).

Better than it's given credit for
Waterworld drowned in its own negative pre-release hype, which I along with pretty much everyone else bought into at the time (a similar set of circumstances rightfully crushed Gigli, which is so much worse than this film as to be in its own category). Upon age and reflection, Waterworld stands on its own as a coherent, enjoyable apocalypse film. It simply doesn't look like something that $200+ million was spent on (much of which went into rebuilding set pieces after a storm, so it had no effect on the look of the film). If you can get past whatever expectation that budget might have placed for you in terms of shiny effects, this is a pretty darn good movie. Costner is believable and entertaining as the Mariner, and the supporting cast does a good job. Hopper has fun chewing the scenery as the Deacon, leader of a huge pack of scavengers called Smokers due to the fact their vehicles and industry run off crude oil carried in their massive mobile oil tanker home.
Most people bash Waterworld because of either its huge price tag, which didn't "deliver," or because they feel it is simply a rehash of Road Warrior but on the ocean. I believe there are strong counterarguments to both these claims. I love Road Warrior, but I hardly believe it invented the genre; there were films coming out 25 years earlier that had the same theme. An apocalypse film is usually the only way to posit an alternative reality movie without having to bloat up on futuristic robots and/or aliens (the other possibility is a caveman film, which we all know will be a resounding success). Costner's film parallels Road Warrior really only to the extent both involve a lone warrior in a savage post-apocalyptic world, which is how every single other film in the genre is also set up. It basically IS the genre.

Waterworld takes its place in that genre quite adeptly. It has plenty of interesting but disposable side villians, neat gadgets and surprises, a cynical central adventurer with lots of deadly skills, and surprisingly good dialogue. Heck even the annoying child actor gets thrown overboard when she becomes too annoying. If only The Phantom Menace writers were taking notes. Likewise, the action in this film proves satisfying, as it is CGI free.

Waterworld was a failure at the time, but it has aged well and deserves another look. It's not as good as Road Warrior, no, but what is? I'd take a screening of Waterworld over most of the recent "summer" action films (Hulk, Daredevil, S.W.A.T. etc) of this past summer any day of the week.

Hello? Am I the only one that understands what Fiction means
First I want to state that I really enjoyed this movie. I liked it's post apocolypitic view of the world covered in water. The story was done well and the look and feel of a watered down Mad Max was creatively done. I enjoyed it from start to finish.

Now on to all the people that apparently do not know what ficiton is. This movie is fiction! That means it's not real or based on total possible reality! So all these people saying, it's not possible for a guy to have gills, or that one scene just couldn't be possible, go get an A&E special if you want reality. If you find yourself repeating to yourself "It's only a movie", go get an imagination too!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but sometimes I wonder how people allow their ideas to be skewed by the majority.

By the way after the 4th viewing I just barely noticed Dry Land is Mt. Everest!

Um... Yeah
In the scene where the little girl is in the water and Kevin Costner bungees down to get her, even if Costner had not retrieved the girl, the two water-jetting enemies would have crashed into each other anyway.

I just wanted to point out this humerous fact, I'm sorry.

They should release the extended version
I first saw this movie as a rental of the theatrical version. It was okay. But I liked it much better when I saw the extended version on broadcast tv. About 45 minutes of footage is added to the extended version, which actually helps the movie a great deal in my opinion. While the extended version is shown on sci-fi channel from time to time (in a four hour time slot), it is not available on video. Nor is the additional footage contained on the DVD release - to my knowledge. So they should release the extended version on DVD, which would be worth buying. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

A chilling thriller
This movie is a classic. It will keep you on the edge of your seat.
Scott Glenn is superb as the detective and his character son, 11 year old Jessie, is impressive.
This story can be non fictional. There's a lot of demented people out there today.
This maniac that they are pursuing is so twisted. He is a monster. The things he does is horrifying. And the ending is a shocker. This film is becoming hard to find. Get it before it's too late.

Really Cool Movie
I haven't seen this movie in a while, in most part, because I couldn't find it. Anyway, I saw it a long time ago and it was so cool. I was around 13, and an avid horror movie watcher. I was never nervous to watch any type of horror around my parents, until this movie. This movie is pretty gory and very entertaining. It is very nerve racking and pretty suspenseful.

Scott Glenn can make just about any picture worthwhile
Several years ago I caught about 15 minutes in the middle of this movie on cable, but was never able to see the rest, and since Scott Glenn is always worth a watch, I finally found it to purchase. The premise of the movie is kind of clever - Scott Glenn as an FBI Profiler type of agent who tumbles to an undiscovered serial killer with the help of his very precocious son. While this is certainly not the best movie I've seen in the genre (e.g. Silence of the Lambs, Red Dragon, etc.), it has some interesting ideas that are actually quite frightening when you think about just how possible something like this could be nowadays. There are all kinds of psychologically-traumatized fanatics runnings around, and this movie explores religious fervor turned deadly. If you can suspend some disbelief (like most movies require of the viewer), you will enjoy this. ... Read more

Description

From the earliest voyages that mapped the Earth to today's launches into space, The Discoverers reverberates with the passion to explore our universe. Based on the Pulitzer Prize winning book by Dr. Daniel J. Boorstin, The Discoverers examines our desire to expand the boundaries of knowledge. The stories presented in this film span space and time, taking us around the world to participate in the act of discovery. Stand alongside Sir Isaac Newton in his British lab; then travel to the present to observe Dr. Louis Herman working with his very cerebral dolphins in Hawaii. Ever wonder "how did they do that?" The Making of 'The Discoverers' puts you behind the camera and provides further insights into the world of science and discovery. Learn more about the research and effort that went into recreating the inspiring historical events presented in The Discoverers. Shot using high definition television cameras, The Making of 'The Discoverers' is a fascinating retrospective on a movie that made history. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

The fillm is an accurate reflection of the book...
... a disjointed, disjuncted pastiche.

An even worse book of the same ilk is Connections by James Burke.

Works great with an LCD projector or a mega-sized plasma dis
If you're in the mood of "beautiful cinematography"c

Cutting-edge cinematography successfully capturing astonishing clips of nature - as with many other IMAX films - but only a small fraction presented in this piece of work. The story of Magellan's search for the passage to the Pacific captures a long shot of mega-icy-glaciers of the North and the teeny row boat of Magellan's team (understandably, the package cover) which is purely my favorite scene. "WOOOW!!" guaranteed on a mega-sized plasma display, but a "wooOOOOOWWWW!!!" guaranteed on a 100inch+ LCD projector.

If you're in the mood of "beautiful cinematography + dynamic sound"c

I wouldn't expect much on the sound quality. My BOSE system has seen much better production (e.g. IMAX "The Living Sea"). The documentary structure of the film makes it hard to enjoy combining your own-taste of music (unlike "The Living Sea" which works amazingly with house/ drum 'n bass/ techno).

Bottom linec
All-in-all for me, "the glaciers & the row boat" scene is the film's worth. The scene is precisely "Discovery" - human challenge to define nature and upon that, being thunderstruck.

Lost Discoverers
I purchased this DVD as a teaching aid. It is worthless from a pedagogical point of view. It is nothing more than a pastiche of disconnected topics. It displays none of the intelligence nor logic of Boorstein's book. It's not even very entertaining-- a colossal waste of time, money, and film.

Disjoint, unconnected and bad audio too!
Not up to the normal standards of IMAX movies. The flow is a very disjointed and unconnected of random events. The audio is poor enough that even following what is there can be difficult. I normally love IMAX movies, but this one leaves a lto to be desired.

Great Experience
When I first got into DVD, I was pleasantly surprised that it seemed to be an excellent documentary. This is probably the most impressive IMAX I have ever seen before. A complete and enthralling.. I have this DVD and I'd highly recommend it. This is a DVD that anyone can enjoy, it is really educational, you can actually stay home and watch this DVD with your whole family. ... Read more