Monday, 22 March 2010

Waterworld

Sometimes I need reminding of the purpose of this blog. It serves several functions

  1. It alleviates my guilt at watching a film, if I blog then I had a reason for it other then pure self satisfaction.
  2. It gives me something to do!
  3. It widens my horizons and gets me watching films that I have never seen before
  4. It allows me to revisit old favourites and discover new nuances
  5. I can use it to expunge the bad taste left by films like Waterworld.

Now I must really expound on this, Waterworld technically isn’t a bad film. It is a bit like a Water based Mad Max 2 crossed with Thomas the Tank Engine (Oh we don't like those Smokies). Its just, well, rather dull. It creaks on and on and really makes very little sense, surely if the icecaps melted wouldn't civilisation start moving onto floating Islands anyway? How did Map Girl get onto the Atoll? How does bad mans eye heal so quickly? These and may other questions ruined my enjoyment.BALDY!!!!!!

The biggest question that springs to mind however is where on Gods Blue Earth (see what I did there? Clever eh?) did all that money go? The sets essentially were junk lashed together and badly camouflaged jetskis? There is plenty of sea to film on so why was this film so expensive?

So Waterworld, visually fun, mentally pointless and saved by the delectable Tripplehorn (who is the sexiest woman in Basic Instinct, not that Blonde upstart) who is about the only vaugely likeable player. Even Costners “Mariner” is completely unsympathetic even at the end he really is just an arse.

Best bit of the film…Tripplehorn...its at least Quadruple!

Paul Out..

Web Statistics