Retour au lagon bleu

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.