Sections

VIDEO VIEWPOINT: Anticipation builds, films disappoint

At some point during the late production stages of the highly anticipated science-fiction epic, "Waterworld," director Kevin Reynolds and star Kevin Costner stopped speaking to each other. Like a divorcing married couple, the two longtime friends said they had "irreconcilable differences." They couldn't work together any longer.

This was not necessarily because it was just another case of two gargantuan Hollywood egos clashing. Such tension-filled collaborations often result in some of the most outstanding and heralded productions to come out of Los Angeles -- "Apocalypse Now" or "Jaws," for example.

No. This situation was much more amusing because, even after they had had a similar falling-out during the production of "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" (1991), these two professionals were letting their personal problems adversely affect an already severely troubled movie. "Waterworld" was doomed ... or so we all thought.

The fact is: Every year the anticipation about certain movies builds up so greatly that, in the opinions of Hollywood and the general public, such films are able to do nothing except succeed phenomenally or fail miserably. In 1995, alone, we saw this example repeatedly ring true.

Long-awaited films like William Friedkin's "Jade" -- which, along with "Waterworld," is new on home video this week -- or Quentin Tarantino and friends' "Four Rooms" bombed because audiences and critics were expecting a greatness that these pictures could not achieve. This is regardless of whether they were able to provide a moderately acceptable plot and story. Ron Howard's "Apollo 13" and Disney's "Toy Story," on the other hand, fulfilled everybody's hopes; these movies were quite good, and they became huge hits.

As it stands in the world of Hollywood publicity and profit making, these situations are the norm; the battle is decided before the war is ever fought.

So when we hear about a film as thoroughly plagued as "Waterworld," our thoughts may travel back to other such infamous failures of the past. "Heaven's Gate" (1981), "Howard the Duck" (1986) and the daddy of them all, "Ishtar" (1987), are just a few of the critical and box office bombs that have exploded onto the screen. But while the unfortunate "Waterworld" was unfairly dubbed such names as "Fishtar" and "Kevin's Gate" well before anyone had an opportunity to see the movie, this film does not compare.

After all, the main problems of its predecessors are what appeared on the screen -- not what occurred beforehand. All of these were movies that audiences and producers alike waited a long time to see. All failed to earn much money. But their problems went much deeper than that.

"Heaven's Gate" was the long-awaited project by director Michael Cimino following his Oscar-winning classic "The Deer Hunter" (1978). This new western had a remarkable cast. Yet it also had financial troubles, namely that it cost WAY too much money to produce. On top of all of this, it was overly long and poorly made. "Howard the Duck" experienced similar difficulties in that it was a major film, executive produced by cinematic titan George Lucas, that wasn't very good.

And "Ishtar," while costly and lacking any significant chemistry between its stars, Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman, was actually not terrible. (Admit it: Have you actually had the courage to see this film and say so?) Still, "Ishtar" has never been able to shake its bad reputation.

Maybe "Waterworld," too, will always be hurt by the negative gossip surrounding it. Nevertheless, when one looks at this film and its expensive production, one will find a flop of little resemblance to the aforementioned forefathers of cinematic disaster. In fact, maybe this is not a flop at all ... hmmm.

Let's consider this theory.

For starters, "Waterworld" cost about $175 million to make. To earn a profit it would, at the same time, have to have become one of the highest-grossing movies of all time -- an entirely unrealistic goal to set. But gross profits don't indicate anything about a film's overall take -- "Forrest Gump" (1994) and "Batman" (1989), two of the most popular films ever, are both supposedly profitless. They are still in the red, especially after paying all their wealthy actors and entirely essential publicists.

"Waterworld," on the other hand, made more than $70 million domestically, and much, much more worldwide. It is one of the most popular American exports of the year -- the highest-grossing movie ever in Israel, as a matter of fact. So what is REALLY a financial failure?

We must also remember that millions of Americans went to see this film. Like "Ishtar" before it, "Waterworld" simply was not so bad. Contrived? Yes. Problematic? Certainly. Horrible? Not in the least.

Plagued by bad weather and faulty set construction, along with Costner and Reynolds' spat (which was over nothing more than how to edit a film that, even in its final state, still consisted of superfluous scenes and could have been much shorter), "Waterworld" was a goner as far as Hollywood believed. Further, it was delicious fodder for all the gossip columnists and tabloids looking through the peepholes.

If nothing else, Hollywood, audiences and critics alike, all disapproved of the fact that the makers of "Waterworld" had the audacity to spend so much money on such a risky, if not occasionally flawed film. But so goes the blockbuster-oriented, movie making mind set in this, the 100th year of the motion picture.

The money spent on "Waterworld" could have paid for "E.T." to be made 100-times over, or "Clerks" or any other exceptionally low-budget film.