Tank McNamara by Bill Hinds for July 14, 2010

As opposed to a GOOD Kevin Costner movie?

You just caught a flagrant duplicate redundancy, ChuckTrent64. Nice going!

There is a simple rule, Costner baseball movie good, Costner water movie bad.

A: “Bull Durham” is a very good movie, and B: “Waterworld” isn’t nearly as bad as its reputation.

But fritzoid, not as bad as its reputation could still mean really really bad. ;)

i read the book. IT wasn’t too bad.

Field of Dreams, however…

Well, Itsjustb, I didn’t want to go so far as to say that it’s a good movie but actually, yeah, I think it’s OK. It has a lot of fun moments, some of the cinematography is stunning, and I think Costner is actually quite good in it. If it had only cost, say, a third of what it ended up costing to make, its current reputation would probably be as a decent if unspectacular fantasy/action flick. But because of its highly-publicized production troubles, everybody had their knives out before the movie even hit the preview screenings, and by God they made sure to use them. Is it basically “Road Warrior” with boats? Yeah, kinda, but that’s still pretty cool.

And what everybody forgets is that “Waterworld” DID make money in the end…

RAY C I don’t have an OED. What do you call your repeat duplicate redundancy again the second time? Inquiring minds—–

Lots of really bad movies make money & lot’s of great movies don’t.

True of course, Chuck, but my point is that “Waterworld” has a reputation as both an artistic and financial disaster, but in truth it’s neither.

Lewreader, if you don’t have an OED Dictionary, you can use my online dictionary. I’ll lend you my PIN number.

The “If you build it, they will come” farm was, at least, for sale a few months ago. Didn’t hear any more about it after that.