Return to the Blue Lagoon

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.

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 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.

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.

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.