User reviews

This film wasted too much time trying to get our heroes back to the island and the first half of the flick was almost an exact repeat of the same sequence in the first. I really wanted to see the grow up again and not just see how they got lost--which was pretty standard in both films. Of course the two castaways had to "rediscover" their sexuality--this is what this film is about. The movie really changes into high gear when the children are re-introduced to civilization.

It really explored the question--who is more civilized?

Obvious comparisons: Brooke Shields/Milla Jovovich--looks: dead heat, although Milla showed more skin (she may have had more upstairs to show). acting: Brooke seemed to capture the innocence of unexpected woman hood (she was brought up by a male, not a female so she may have had less schooling)

Christopher Atkins/Brian Krouse--looks: Chris hands down, Brian looked like a Pillsbury Dough Boy by comparison; acting: Brian had a slight edge, in that he had to act more "grown up".

Amazingly both original and sequel are worth a watch: The first for the story and acting; the second for Milla and a more interesting ending.

RETURN TO THE BLUE LAGOON, made 11 years after the successful first film, is one of those movies that's happy to reprise the plot of the original while adding a few twists and tweaks of its own. It's an entirely superfluous kind of film that sees yet another couple of kids washed up on a desert island and having to fend for themselves against nature and their fellow man.

There are a few differences here - the adult with them is a woman, the boy is the son of the couple from THE BLUE LAGOON, they're staying in the same place so make use of the already-there house, etc. - but none of them make a difference. Once again the film is all about puberty, isolation, love and family, except as it's not original it feels like a lukewarm rehash of the first movie.

The acting doesn't really sit right either. The age gap between Milla Jovovich and Brian Krause is too obvious, and Krause is as equally wooden as Christopher Atkins before him. Jovovich definitely has something feral within her, but less use is made of that as in THE FIFTH ELEMENT, which handled her unique qualities perfectly. Director William A. Graham made a career of TV movies and although RETURN TO THE BLUE LAGOON had a theatrical release, it feels very much like a second-rate outing in every respect.

The Blue Lagoon was a silent success with the audiences of 1980, not to mention one of the most controversial movies of all time. So, I guess the director just wanted to have the same amount of success, so he used the same story, just different characters.

Unlike the way the first one ended, Richard and Emily are dead when they are found, but their son, Patty soon renamed Richard after his father is adopted by the only mother on the ship, Sarah who has another child, a daughter, Lily played by a new successful actress, Milla Jovovich. When the ship takes another tragic turn by getting torn down by sea, Sarah, Richard, and Lily land "coincedentally" on the same island that Richard and Emily lived on. The house has change a bit, but I guess it can't always stay the same, but Sarah raises the children more different than in the first film, Lily and Richard know the ways of nature and let their love blossom after Sarah passes from being ill. When civilized men finally come to save Lily and Richard they begin to question the meaning of what is truly civilized and what is not.

Over all, I wouldn't say it's a bad movie, but it was just an unnecessary sequel. Because of the fact like I said, it's the same plot. Some great actors got their start though because of this film. So over all, I'm not going to give it a terrible rating, but the director could have thought this out a little more.

3/10

The Good: - Scenery - Soundtrack - Cinematography

The Bad: - Disregards the plot from The Blue Lagoon - Sexual "overtones" rather than "undertones" - More an attempt at capitalizing on the popularity of the original than an extension of the latter's story

Comments:

There aren't many situations that manage to capture the imagination as does watching two children blossom into young adults isolated from civilization on a dessert island. The Blue Lagoon's charm was the unadulterated depiction of the purity and innocence of mind that "civilized" society deprives us. It was the forgotten image of what children are all doomed to lose as they experience life based on societal dictates rather than the nature we are all born with.

Return to the Blue Lagoon re-examines these themes, if under the somewhat greater taint of society's teachings. In this way, the purity of the characters of Return is not as pure, the innocence not as innocent. Although the opening sequence makes quick work of any attachment to the original, Return was a decent film in its own right. Fans of the original will inevitably find it difficult to resist the sequel. The trick will be mentally disregarding it, should it prove more unsettling than fulfilling.

going into this movie, i didn't have expectations of great acting or a phenomenal script. i had never even heard of it or The Blue Lagoon until a few weeks ago because people only talk about the really great movies.

i judge movies on how they make me feel deep down. this wasn't perfect but if you leave all your expectations at the door, you'd be surprised how much truth is there.

it lets you enjoy innocence. i think that's why i could even accept the fact that the performances weren't absolutely perfect. children aren't supposed to be perfect, but they do have one thing over most adults, a child of innocence will love unconditionally despite all the confusion that can be found in the world-even on an deserted island. i think the people who created this movie were able to capture that part of life and so i have to approve.

i watched The Blue Lagoon before this one and have to say, even though this one is less explicit, it's even more enjoyable. both are worth attention though.

however, neither should be viewed by young children; they were given their ratings for a reason.

I loved the original version, well, the 1980 original version, and I found this to be basically a copy which wanted to cash in on the success of the first. The theme was basically the same, with unnecessary violence added in.

In 1897, a missionary widow (Lisa Pelikan) and two toddlers are stranded on a paradisal island in the South Pacific. As the kids grow they learn about the wonders and dangers of life on their remote isle, including the birds & the bees. Milla Jovovich and Brian Krause play the two youths while Nana Coburn is also on hand.

"Return to the Blue Lagoon" (1991) is the sequel to the 1980 hit movie, but bombed at the box office, likely because it's basically a retread. I prefer this one for various reasons; including the entertaining last act and the simple fact that I favor Milla over Brooke Shields (the latter never did anything for me). Both movies were based on Henry De Vere Stacpoole's trilogy, although this one deviates more than the first.

There are similarities to Edgar Rice Burroughs' "Tarzan of the Apes," which suggests that Burroughs was influenced by "The Blue Lagoon" since it debuted in 1908, four years before "Tarzan" (although Burroughs claims that his only inspiration was the Roman myth of Romulus and Remus). (Why Sure!).

This is a well done and realistic island drama/adventure/romance and doesn't deserve its bad rap. If you like movies involving castaways, like "Mysterious Island" (1961), "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan" (1984) and "Six Days Seven Nights" (1998), it's a must. This one just lacks the fantasy or farcical elements and is more akin to "Crusoe" (1988) and "Lord of the Flies" (1990).

The film runs 1 hour, 42 minutes, and was shot on Taveuni Island, Fiji.

GRADE: B.

How would you make a sequel to the 1980 version of "The Blue Lagoon"? Well, my view is that the world needs a sequel to "The Blue Lagoon" like it needs a hole in the head, but if I were commissioned to write such a sequel and could not get out of the commission, it would go something like this. Richard and Emmeline are found alive, rescued and are taken back to civilisation, where they discover that they are heirs to a fortune. Their wealth, good looks and the remarkable tale of their survival on a desert island make them the most famous couple in America and they are in great demand everywhere in high society. They, however, hate their new lifestyle and find high society superficial, hypocritical and cruel. They quietly abandon their new life and return to their tropical island with their son to live out the rest of their days there.

In the sequel that we actually have, Richard and Emmeline are found dead, even though the ending of the original film implies that they were found unconscious but alive. Their baby son (called Paddy in the original film but Richard here) has survived, however, and is rescued by the ship's crew. An outbreak of cholera on board leads to young Richard being cast adrift along with a widow named Sarah Hargrave and her baby daughter Lilli. Eventually the three end up back on the same tropical island where Richard's parents grew up. Sarah (whose husband was a missionary) does her best to bring the two children up as good civilised Christians, but when she dies a few years later they are left on their own, just as the elder Richard and Emmeline were.

From this point onwards, the scriptwriter of "Return to the Blue Lagoon" seems to have abandoned any pretence that he was writing a sequel and to have decided that it was easier to write the script for a remake instead. The adventures of Richard II and Lilli closely parallel those of Richard I and Emmeline, scene for scene and at times almost word for word. The leading actors, Milla Jovovich and Brian Krause, seem to have been cast on the basis of their physical resemblance to Brooke Shields and Christopher Atkins. Only towards the end does the plot start to differ from that of its predecessor.

I have never been a fan of the 1980 "Blue Lagoon", which I found just another sentimental teenage romance movie with an exotic setting and with wooden performances from its two young stars. Here Krause is perhaps rather less wooden than Atkins, but Jovovich is just as bad as Shields was. Shields had the dubious distinction of becoming the first-ever winner of the Razzie Award for "Worst Actress". The 1991 film was nominated for five Razzies, including "Worst Picture", "Worst Director" for William Graham, "Worst Screenplay" for Leslie Stevens and "Worst New Star" for both Krause and Jovovich. Surprisingly, it lost out in each category, generally to "Hudson Hawk". I have never seen that film, but if it is even worse than "Return to the Blue Lagoon" I cannot say that I am in any hurry to do so. 3/10. (Objectively speaking, the film is no worse than the 1980 version which I awarded 4/10, but an extra mark is docked for the sequel's lack of originality).

she is, maybe, the only motif to see the film. not exactly for performance but for the simple presence. bodies, feelings, discover of the aspects of life by innocent young people out of civilization. and the classic question - is it useful ? the no is not reasonable in same measure like the yes. because it is a decent film who reminds more than could present. because Brian Krause is obvious not the most inspired option. because something seems be too strange and the acting or script are not the tools to repair the errors. because it is a story for each generation and after a decade, its reinvent could be a not bad idea. because it is, obvious, an exercise. and nothing more. to reinvent an universe. to suggest a state.this is all.

I can only think of one thing more incomprehensible than making a movie from a bad script and that is for a filmmaker to base his idea for a movie on another movie that is terrible. Normally directors try to rip off good movies, like the guy who directed "The Italian Connection" based on the "The French Connection" (good thinking because sometimes Americans confuse the French and the Italians), or the other fellow who directed the porno "American Booty" based on Sam Mendes' "American Beauty." And if all else fails, do a sequel like "Jaws II" based on the good "Jaws" or "Exorcist II" based on the great "Exorcist." I could go on, except I will be going off track and forgetting to tell you about the time when they decided to make the terrible "Return of the Blue Lagoon" based on the terrible "Blue Lagoon" which must have had the makers of sequels and rip offs scratching their heads.

The problem with "Return to the Blue Lagoon" is the same as the last film. It is not about anything. It seems that the filmmakers felt, in spite of the bad critical reception of the first Blue Lagoon, that an exotic island and two teenagers discovering sex and then fornicating (though we see none of that) was enough to create an entertaining film. Of course, the filmmakers did a little tweaking for this film. There is the sad background story which explains how the two kids got stuck on the island, like the last two kids. Who says that Carl Orff's Carmina Burana does not have any influence over film-making. There is also an egg competition, an encounter with a native, a seductive English girl from the outside and a lascivious sailor. But other than that, Lilli (Milla Jovovich) and Richard (Brian Krause) go through the same motions as Brooke Shields and Christopher Atkins as though they were destined to live the exact same lives as the previous couple on the island. What "Return to the Blue Lagoon" really is, if you think about it, is an unsexy pornographic movie for kids; a stage for kids to go through before they see the softcore and hardcore porn films. But even based on that sordid criteria, "Return to the Blue Lagoon" fails because even the sleaziest, worst acted pornos at least do something to your libido. "Return to the Blue Lagoon" does nothing because it has all the bad acting you would expect from a porno without any of any of the great sex (not least because the actors are underage). So if you are interested in a movie where a couple have lots of great sex on a deserted tropical island, watch Lina Wertmueller's "Swept Away by a Mysterious Destiny in the Blue Sea of August" instead. It has gorgeous pictures of a tropical paradise, far better acting, and you won't feel dirty and guilty by the end of the film because the actors, Giancarlo Giannini and Mariangela Melato, were both in their thirties (though they look like in the their twenties) at the time of filming.

Good movie,it was being going well until richard and lili came in a intention of husband and wife.this scene ruin movie i think.otherwise good and fine.

i saw the film yesterday night on spix at midnight as there weren't any good movie up in the television at that time and now i am thankful to the media Chanel spix for that! the movie is great,but it seems to go at a slow pace(probably because we are to much used to the fast pace of life) but it delivers its message in the most beautiful way. the movie teaches us that there won't be any of the evil dwelling in us if we are deeply associated with the best of the creations of nature. towards the end of the movie we learn that how harm we are causing to this holy place of ours.

just think of a single thing which is not derived either directly or indirectly from the nature! probably we won't find any. and now think of the times when you have been grateful to this nature(and not god for that sake)for this beautiful life of ours or the way in which we have given back to the nature for showering it's gift upon us! this movie teaches us to be grateful to each and everything in life and cherish this beautiful life of ours without causing any harm to the other creatures of this beautiful planet.GO FOR IT AT LEAST ONCE IN YOUR LIFETIME! WISH YOU A GREAT DAY!

Richard and Emmeline Lestrange die leaving their son Paddy as the sole survivor. The rescue ship is overwhelmed with suspected cholera. Mr. Kearney, Mrs. Sarah Hargrave with her daughter Lilli, and Paddy renamed Richard are cast off in the lifeboat. Kearney threatens the toddlers and Sarah kills him. The trio ends up back at the original island. After Sarah's death, Lilli (Milla Jovovich) and Richard (Brian Krause) are left to themselves.

The story gymnastics are annoying as heck to make the sequel basically a repeat of the original. I'm sure anybody would be laughing with derision at the silly plot repeat. The original has the possibility of being a guilty pleasure. This is an unforgivable embarrassment for anybody who actually likes the sequel. I have nothing against the two young actors. Milla obviously has more acting abilities than the usual model. However, there is simply no point to this sequel for an unworthy franchise.