fine whine

So tonight, after ten years of waiting, I have finally seen Waterworld.

I've heard it dubbed "Fishtar", but until I watch that Warren Beatty/Dustin Hoffman buddy road movie I can't really judge it.

Then again the nickname is based less on the subject matter or quality of the film but instead a judgement based on the high budget versus low box-office. For a film that is so high budget, then, it is pretty bleak, with so much of the picture (other than the deep blue water) in drab browns and greys.

In this respect particularly I think the film is closer to Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, but there are only so many directions to take the (always overly beige) post-apocalyptic idea. Admittedly the whole Earth covered in water twist is a new one, as the majority of bleak futures take place in massive deserts or parking decks, but that may be a matter of budgets over creativity.

After all, how many screenwriters and sat and sat and sat and bashed their heads against the walls, cursing, "Why can't I come up with a different take on the future? Why why why?! (WHAM WHAM WHAM)", before that one, possibly Peter Rader or David Twohy, or even someone else entirely, had that watershed moment of lucid brilliance, wondering, "Why not put it all out on the water? Why not why not why not?!"

Why not indeed? Perhaps, as has been pointed out many a time, because the melting of the ice caps wouldn't nearly cover that much of the landmass, to leave all but the top of the tallest peaks underwater? Then again, fantastic (and incorrect) premises do not alone a movie sink.