Return to the Blue Lagoon

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.