El regreso a la laguna azul

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.

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

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.

Oh boy. Where do I start...this movie...words are failing me...it's just so incomprehensibly bad. Whose idea was it to make this piece of trash, anyway? The plot sucks, the characters REALLY suck, and it looks like the film crew just ripped off half the scenes from the first film. There are plot holes galore: how do you get pneumonia from standing outside for 30 seconds in the rain, when you waited out a storm while standing outside not 10 minutes before? Where did the cannibal people come from all of a sudden? Why is that old guy who's the skipper on that ship look exactly like that old guy who took care of the children in the first movie? If you have the chance to be rescued, why do you stay in isolation on a tropical island? How did the parents die if the sailor at the end of the first movie said they were alive? The main "actors" in this movie have horrible acting skills. There's no plot whatsoever. It just boggles the mind! I need a stiff drink.

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.