Its okay. Not the worst one I've ever seen.

Hype can do strange things. Once the movie going public figured out how bad the movie was its unfortunate star got shuffled down the Hollywood depth chart. What was that dudes name again? His career has been dead for so long that I'm having trouble with it...

An 'almost' movie. . .almost well-acted (it wasn't) 'almost' had good special effects (they weren't too special) 'almost' had interesting characters (not really) add up to an 'almost' average film. . .

I really liked this movie, but then Costner is one of my favorites. I think this movie is labeled the way it is due to the amount of money it lost.

I'm with you guys, I've seen many, many far worse sci fi movies than this.  The special effects were pretty impressive for its day, and the story line wasn't bad.  Looking back, all the negative buzz may have been a function of a personal backlash against Kevin Costner.

I agree with twansalem here. This is not that bad of a flick and I watch it from time to time when it comes up on cable.

I realize that Waterworld is sort of considered a standard when it comes to bad movies, but I don't see what's so awful about it. Yes, it's a little far-fetched, but isn't every single sci-fi or fantasy movie ever made far-fetched? I thought that Waterworld was actually a pretty good movie, and it's entertaining enough that I find it re-watchable.