Writer Peter Rader came up with the idea for Waterworld during a conversation with Brad Krevoy where they discussed creating a Mad Max rip-off. Rader wrote the initial script in 1986 but kept it shelved until 1989. Rader cited Mad Max as a direct inspiration for the film, while also citing various Old Testament stories and the story of Helen of Troy (with the main female character being named Helen in a direct reference). It is also widely believed that inspiration was taken from Freakwave by Peter Milligan and Brendan McCarthy, a "Mad Max goes surfing" comic strip first published by Pacific Comics in Vanguard Illustrated #1-3 (November 1983-March 1984), and continued by Eclipse Comics in Strange Days #1-3 (November 1984-April 1985). McCarthy himself had unsuccessfully tried to sell Freakwave as a movie in the early 1980s; he would go on to co-write Mad Max: Fury Road (2015).[5]
Because of the runaway costs of the production and its expensive price tag, some critics dubbed it "Fishtar"[20] and "Kevin's Gate",[21] alluding to the flops Ishtar and Heaven's Gate, although the film debuted at the box office at No. 1.[22][23] With a budget of $172 million (and a total outlay of $235 million once marketing and distribution costs are factored in),[2] the film grossed $88 million at the North American box office. The film did better overseas, with $176 million at the foreign box office, for a worldwide total of $264 million.[3] However, even though this figure surpasses the total costs spent by the studio, it does not take into account the percentage of box office gross that theaters retain, which is generally up to half;[2] but after factoring in home video sales and TV broadcast rights among other revenue streams, Waterworld eventually became profitable.[24][25]
water world movie dubbed in hindi
Contemporary reviews for the film were mixed. Roger Ebert gave Waterworld 2.5 stars out of 4 and said: "The cost controversy aside, Waterworld is a decent futuristic action picture with some great sets, some intriguing ideas, and a few images that will stay with me. It could have been more, it could have been better, and it could have made me care about the characters. It's one of those marginal pictures you're not unhappy to have seen, but can't quite recommend."[26] Owen Gleiberman gave it a B in Entertainment Weekly. He commented that while its massive budget had paid off by genuinely creating the sensation of a world built on water, the film generally came off as a second-rate rip-off of The Road Warrior, with weaker, slower-paced action sequences and less startling villains. He praised Costner's performance, but found the film's environmental message pretentious.[27] James Berardinelli of Reelviews Movie Reviews was one of the film's few supporters, calling it "one of Hollywood's most lavish features to date". He wrote: "Although the storyline isn't all that invigorating, the action is, and that's what saves Waterworld. In the tradition of the old Westerns and Mel Gibson's Mad Max flicks, this film provides good escapist fun. Everyone behind the scenes did their part with aplomb, and the result is a feast for the eyes and ears."[28] Mick LaSalle, reviewing the film the week of its release on home video, argued that it did not deserve some of its more negative reviews, since "despite its confused impulses and occasional slow spots, Waterworld... has an elusive, appealing spirit that holds up for more than two hours. It's a genuine vault at greatness that misses the mark -- but survives." He commented that while the film succeeds at its high ambitions for isolated moments, the clash between its earnest ambition and intrusive flashiness makes it generally fall short of its reach.[29] 2ff7e9595c
Comments