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.

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.

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.

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.