|
The following is a slightly revised 1996 review, from the New York Streetcar News, of the only known other movie to date about DCC, 1995's Waterworld (the sequel thankfully never happened!):
Waterworld, starring Kevin Costner, Dennis Hopper, Jeanne Tripplehorn. Directed by Kevin Reynolds, 1995.
Although Waterworld is only a mediocre action flick, people should still see it because it is Hollywood's first bigtime look at global warming. Set far in the future, the ice caps have long since melted, covering the earth with water and destroying our civilization. Kevin Costner stars as the Mariner, a lone sailor on a trimaran trying to get to the mythical ‘Dryland' before the marauding Smokers, a band of pirates led by the Deacon (Dennis Hopper), get him.
Waterworld is actually Mad Max grafted onto a clumsy environmental parable. Costner, as lone anti-hero, battles consumerism gone mad (the Smokers). He uses only wind power, recycles everything and grows plants on his boat. The smokers, in contrast, ride power boats, jet skis and a seaplane, fueled by oil stored in their home base, the former supertanker Exxon Valdez (!!). They even go for a spin belowdecks in a huge old Lincoln sporting a "Nuke the Whales" bumpersticker!
Ultimately, this adds up to little more than a rather bleak and silly cartoon rather than a serious look at a looming global threat. However, in one startling sequence, we glimpse the ruins of a high-rise city under hundreds of feet of water. If the movie had been any good, these surprisingly realistic and disturbing images (actually Denver - get it? the mile-high city?) of the end of civilization could have become a public relations problem for the international automotive and petroleum industries. These companies are eager to foster unlimited consumption of oil and cars, products which have been directly linked to global warming.
Indeed, these industries, and the politicians they control, have been glacially slow in accepting the ever growing body of evidence about global warming. While Waterworld adds little to the scientific debate, it paints a stark picture of the consequences of unlimited use of fossil fuels. Unlike The Planet of The Apes, (1968) which withheld its shocking revelation of our own self-inflicted destruction until the final scenes, the images of the underwater city here lose much of their impact amidst all the swashbuckling caricatures. And the movie's bittersweet ending allows us hope for human survival, and also, of course, a sequel. - WF |