Retour au lagon bleu

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.

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

This film was absolutely beautiful. I can't understand so many people having a problem with it. Everybody says its horrible, why, what is so horrible about it? It made me wanna become more natural and relaxed, knowing that nature is truth and purity while civilization is corruption and a lie. This movie is definitely for Milla Jovovich and Brian Krause fans. Milla's acting seems very inexperienced and like she doesn't care about it, but that actually makes her seem more natural, although I wish she would be more professional. Brian Krause does an average job, but again when you watch the movie the last thing you think about is how the actors act. What gets you the most about this movie is its beautiful message about how a human being should be, beautiful and pure in all ways.I definitely recommend this film.

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.