IMDb > Return to the Blue Lagoon (1991) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Return to the Blue Lagoon
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Return to the Blue Lagoon More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 39 reviews in total 

33 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

Not quite as good as the original, but interesting

Author: rlcsljo from Hollywood, ca
21 June 2001

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Not too bad

Author: Mattu481 from United States
31 July 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I didn't think this movie was too bad.

I didn't necessarily like that Richard and Em from the first movie wound up being found dead by different people when they were found "just sleeping" at the end of the first one by Richard's father. Kinda takes away from the first movie, but I guess it was necessary to set up the angle of their son in the sequel.

I think the fact that they were more educated than the couple in the first movie was good, because it gave it it's own element. No one wanted to see a complete repeat of the Blue Lagoon. But the innocence is still there.

The fact that they wound up on the same island isn't that far-fetched. They were in the area when they lost their paddle in the first movie. The location they stayed with Paddy as kids in the first movie wasn't THAT far from where they wound up staying after he died. In the second movie, The mother and the kids get dropped off the main boat, so it was probably the closest land there was.

And for the people that wondered where the tribe came from when they didn't see them for years, they came every 3 months when it was a full moon outside. That's where the drums were coming from AND the boats going through the water in the middle of the night. They were just never allowed to go to the other side of the island, ITS THE LAW! lol and when they did sneak over there, there was no full moon, so the tribe wasn't there.

I liked that they brought in "civilized" people towards the end of the movie. It let the viewers see how they'd interact with other people. They always knew that they were supposed to ask to be taken back to civilization if a ship ever came, but if the only interaction they had with "civilized" people was being shot at and attempted rape, I'd want to stay on the island too.

Overall, it wasn't that bad of a movie. Maybe not as good as the first, but what sequel is? I'd recommend it.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

leave expectations at the door and you'll enjoy!!!!

Author: cpoe2 from United States
10 January 2006

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 43 people found the following review useful:

Why? I mean was a sequel that necessary?

Author: Kristine ( from Chicago, Illinois
3 December 2003

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.


Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 46 people found the following review useful:

This film rocks!

Author: tnt_123 from Sweden
29 December 2004

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

A Rehash of the first movie ... except for the last 25 minutes

Author: workshyslacker from United Kingdom
3 April 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


Call it morbid curiosity but I couldn't resist watching this sequel/remake/cash-in.

The Bad

1. The Plot; (see the Good) A basic rehash of the BL as our Paddy gets rescued from the small craft the original BL couple Richard Snr and Emmeline were cast adrift in. Renamed Richard, his rescuing ship is now rife with cholera and his adoptive mother and her daughter, Lilli, find their way back to the original island. Plot devices repeated from the first film as his new guardian teaches the young children the facts of life and conveniently expires so that the young couple can go through adolescence, the discovery of love, sex etc etc much like the BL, except this time they are more knowing than the original couple. The wide-eyed innocence and charm of the first film is completely lost so the coming of age story had NO resonance. There were no important themes about life and death, parenthood, and familial love. Even the same scenes are repeated; the water-slide; swimming blissfully in the sea, love beneath a waterfall. I can't even comment on how Richard Jnr can outswim a shark (!) and his father couldn't but I'll let that one slide...

2. Acting; Of all the criticisms against the BL about the poor acting from Shields and Atkins, this one is not any better. At least the first couple from the original movie had the excuse of having the mentality of eight year olds and their sparse, childish banter reflected this. This couple (Krause and Jovovich) say cringe-worthy pretentious things like "There's a baby growing inside of me... a woman knows these kinds of things".

3. The Characterization; I never understood the motivations of these two except that they liked frolicking in the surf. At least in the first film one had the contrast between Richard Snr wanting to go back to civilisation and Emmeline who didn't, and the break-up in their friendship following Emmeline's failure to light the signal fire. The pivotal emotional point in the BL was when Richard Snr realised he had everything he wanted on the island and didn't hail down his father's ship when it did arrive.

4. The Romance; Nope. Didn't feel it or root for the couple, especially when Richard Jnr starts making eyes at the new girl, pushing poor Lilli so far as to daub herself with clownish make-up and put some clothes on (!). In the first movie, Richard Snr rejected civilisation for his life with his new-found family.

5. Cinematography; Bland. The first BL was much better and the underwater scenes felt magical.

6. Music; Didn't really lift the scenes and barely noticeable except in the action sequences.

The Good

1. The Plot; The last 25 minutes were interesting. A "What If" if "civilized" people came ashore. Well, they're not much better, being conniving strumpets, thieves and potential rapists. It also worked better as an action-adventure film than the first film.

2. Social commentary for young ladies; make-up is bad, clothes are BAD, anorexia is even WORSE. Seriously, though, I felt sorry for Lilli when she tried to copy her rival for Richard Jnr's affections, going so far to put on make-up and clothes and refusing to eat. I didn't see the anorexia part coming...

Overall, this film is barely adequate if you've never seen the first one. And if you liked the BL, you won't like its sequel. For those of you who enjoyed "Return to the BL", I urge you to check out the far superior original.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Story very similar to the first, but with different characters. I enjoyed it.

Author: TxMike from Houston, Tx, USA, Earth
6 May 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In 'Blue Lagoon' the movie ends with the young couple and their baby adrift at sea as a boat approaches. We don't really know what happened or if they survived. This movie, "Return", takes up where that one ended, somewhere in the Pacific, in the late 1800s.

As a small party from the ship board the small boat, they find the parents no longer alive, but the baby boy is fine. On board the ship are a mother and her daughter, and she decides to care for the baby boy. But on board the crew soon begin to come down with an illness, Cholera, so the woman and the two small children are put out on a lifeboat, it is their only chance to survive.

The story that results is very similar to the first movie, in that an adult and 2 small children are stranded on an uncharted island, in fact the same uncharted island, and there the children grow into young adulthood.

Milla Jovovich, who was only 14 or 15 during filming, is very suitable as Lilli, the girl the baby grew into on the island. Brian Krause, who was 20 or 21 during filming, was Richard, the boy that the baby boy grew into. As the story progressed and they entered puberty we see them facing many of the behavioral issues the teens in the first movie faced, and mirror what teens in our own society face.

No, by no means is this a great movie but it is interesting. It is too much like the first one so not much new is explored, but interesting to see anyway.

MAJOR SPOILERS: As the 4 are initially out to sea in the small boat the seaman sees they are running short of water and wants to throw the two small crying children overboard. As he begins to the mom takes a harpoon and knocks him out them dumps him into the ocean. The remaining three of them come ashore and soon find the home that the boy and his young parents had left not long before. As the children grow, and are maybe 8 and 10, the mom gets pneumonia and instructs them how to bury her and carve a memorial after she dies. As they get to be teenagers they decide to marry and have their own ring ceremony, then basically behave as if they are on their honeymoon. A ship shows up and a small crew comes ashore looking for fresh water, and the captain's daughter, Sylvia, tempts Richard, tries to seduce him but he spurns her advances to stay true to Lilli. A rogue crewman tries to violate Lilli, eventually tries to shoot Richard, but gets eaten by a shark as he chases Richard into water off the reef. After all these experiences Lilli and Richard decide to stay on the island and have their baby there, instead of going back to "civilization."

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Wonderful sequel to a good movie

Author: Demonicaura from United States
26 May 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I had never even heard about the blue lagoon movies until about a year ago. After finding out that shields was in the first movie I thought that it might be kind of interesting since she was one of my favorite actresses however after finding out that there was underage nudity in it my first though was "how could this be legal" since my understanding was the underage nudity was not legal in the united states. I put that  thought aside and decided to watch the movie anyway. After watching it I Saw just how innocent the nudity really was. There was nothing sexual at all about it. About a month or so after watching the original blue lagoon I found out that there was a sequel and that this one had mila jovovich  in it, another actress of whom I knew from the resident evil  series. I figured that this one might be just a good as the first one and for the most part it was. I mean don't get me wrong this was a wonderful movie and the story line was well thought out but the innocents that we saw from the first movie was taken away. In the first movie they grew up not knowing about puberty, pregnancy, and what your body goes though during that time. In this movie both of the young children were educated about the changes that their bodies would go through when they hit the age of puberty. If you put that aside and just watch both movies you will see that they are both great movies to watch. I personally cannot see how people can say that this movie or it's original with shields in it are in any way borderline child pornography. Okay so what I mean yes we do see  a frontal view of mila jovovich's breasts and she was only like 15 or so in this movie and during the first twenty minutes or so there are numerous scenes in which we see a frontal shot of young Courtney barilla who is only like 8 or 9 at the time but it's not like it is  anything that we've never seen growing up so I personally cannot see how people are so bent out of shape about seeing it in the movies but to each their own. Putting that aside both the original and it's sequel were great movies and their story lines were well thought out. They are both worth seeing and in my opinion are a perfect family movie for all ages. Younger children might not fully understand what is going on in the movie and parents might have to explain some things but both movies are family oriented.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

A decent film in its own right

Author: (BabyFarkMcGeeZax)
19 June 2007

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


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.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

No where as good as the original

Author: haglette from Australia
19 December 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film definitely was not as good as the first one... The the couple were more "civilzed" which ruined it coz the mother explain to them about "where babies come from" and "growing up" which really took out the innocence and ignorance that the original couple had. They didn't talk childish as they did in the original movie because the mother educated them. I also felt bad for the guy, Richard (what are the chances that she would name him the same as his father??) who didn't understand his issues with growing up while as the girl, Lilli had it pretty much explain to her when they were 8 or 9. (I hate the classic woke up to have her period and ran to wash her sheets even though she shoudn't have been embarrassed because thats what the point of the movie was supposed to be!) Not to sound dirty but the original was better because of the "love montages"! And they grew up slower... In this version it was like WHAM were teenagers now let "do it!" and they KNEW what they were doing! Over all this film just didn't have the charm on the original and it was kinda boring...

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history