IMDb > Into the Blue 2: The Reef (2009) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Into the Blue 2: The Reef
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Into the Blue 2: The Reef (V) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 13 reviews in total 

26 out of 42 people found the following review useful:

not bad

5/10
Author: coffeeblack from Denmark
18 April 2009

i thought i would give this movie a chance because i must admit i really enjoyed the first. i went in with my expectations low and after the viewing i must admit i was'nt sorry. this movie is just OK. into the blue 1 was pretty good so a sequel was hard to do. the story was fine if not a little outdated and the acting was fine apart from a few silly actors letting the side down.

as u can probably tell there is not a lot to write about this apart from that if you enjoyed the first 1 then you will probably enjoy this as well...just not as much.

give it a try and let me know if my rating of fair or unfair;)

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Great movie

10/10
Author: Bill Griffin from United States
24 September 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Come on give me a break , some people wouldn't know a good movie if it bit them in the... well you figure it out . For one thing there wasn't that much skin in the movie as some would exaggerate that it does also no it doesn't have A list actors in it . The movie was very entertaining . I loved the first one too. I was setting myself up to be disappointed in the 2nd one but was surprised. The acting was great for non A-list actors very entertaining and great story. I learned along time ago to not listen to reviewers . If you like ocean movies which I do, judge for your self . Just cause I like ocean movies doesn't mean I like them all. I have seen some really bad ones but this is not one of them. I bought this one for my DVD collection to go right beside the first one that was also a great movie. I only gave this 10 stars cause of the bad reviews it received that it didn't deserve at all . It may not really be a 10 but its well over average. Watch it !

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Average Sequel

4/10
Author: killbill_28 from Australia
15 February 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

My first review of 2010 is "Into The Blue 2: The Reef". The story is about two divers played by Chris Carmack and Laura Vandervoort who love to explore hidden treasures at a bottom of a local reef. One day after a day of exploring they are approached by a couple played by David Anders and Marsha Thomason. They tell the young divers that they want to hire them to explore the reef and find a rare artifact about Columbus' hidden treasure that is reported at the bottom of the reef.

Next day the four dive to the bottom of the reef and of coarse after a whole day of diving they find nothing. A few more days past and the two hired divers found out that they a part of a major deadly plot in which they can't escape otherwise they will be killed. They were hired to find two big containers. One contains a nuclear reactor and the other contains a core.

The movie also has a back story about another person (brother of the lead character) trying to patch things up with his girlfriend, I reckon this part of the story was a waste of time, this also includes a very steamy sex scene between the couple which to me is a complete waste and wasn't needed to be shown.

However apart from that, this movie does have some good underwater photography and the colors blend in well which is why it receives 4 stars. Into The Blue 2 is a sequel only by name. None of the original actors or characters return, it has a dumb plot, stupid characters and a boring climax.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Quite a bit better than the first one (and "The Deep")

Author: Wuchak from Ohio/PA border
31 March 2011

I wasn't all that impressed with either 1977's "The Deep" or the film it inspired 28 years later, 2005's "Into the Blue." They were decent oceanic thrillers but that's about it. I liked the actors in both -- Nick Nolte, Robert Shaw & Jacqueline Bisset in "The Deep" and Paul Walker, Scott Caan & Jessica Alba in "Into the Blue" -- but unless you're rabid fans of Bisset and Alba (or the guys) neither film ever rose above the level of average.

2009's direct-to-video "Into the Blue 2: The Reef" is a sequel-in-name-only that successfully builds on the template of those other two films, delivering a far more entertaining experience IMHO.

"Into the Blue 2" simply has a more engaging story, more dazzling filmmaking and better, more numerous bikini-clad babes. In other words, everything that you might be looking for in an island thriller is here, only better than those earlier pictures. Although the main cast is relatively no-name (Chris Carmack, Laura Vandervoort, Marsha Thomason & Dave Anders), they do a splendid job; plus the film is highlighted by two solid cameos of Parvati Shallow ("Survivor") and Audrina Patridge, both incredibly gorgeous. Another highlight is the ultra-serious and thrilling final act, which comprises the last 35 minutes or so. Up to that point the story is pretty much just a fun, light-hearted beach/diving flick. The dramatic change in tone works in the film's favor and keeps it from being one-dimensional.

Since "Into the Blue 2: The Reef" is a direct-to-video release it cost a fraction the expense of "The Deep" and "Into The Blue," the latter of which cost a whopping $50 million, believe it or not. This makes an interesting study: Filmmakers can make better films at a fraction of the cost; it's simply a matter of ingenuity. Hats off to director Stephen Herek, writer Mitchell Kapner and the cast - awesome job!

"Into the Blue 2" was shot in Hawaii whereas the other two were filmed in the Caribbean.

The runtime is 92 minutes.

GRADE: A-

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

How hard would it have been to cast an actress willing to take her top off?

4/10
Author: MBunge from Waterloo, Iowa
10 July 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Oh boy, this is the sort of film that makes you feel sorry for Hollywood screenwriters. I mean, everybody's got to pay bills, so you figure you'll take a job writing the direct-to-DVD sequel of Jessica Alba movie. How bad can it be? And then your producer says you've got to write a part for an MTV reality star, create an entire second set of characters because the leading lady won't take her top off, inject an Iraq/Afghanistan war theme into the movie because somebody wants to pretend they're relevant and to top it off, you've got to jerry rig an ending out of spit and bailing wire when the production runs out of money. No wonder writers drink…and so many of them commit suicide.

Sebastian and Dani (Chris Carmack and Laura Vandervoort) are a young, impossibly good looking pair of lovers who run a diving business in Hawaii. They've spent years looking for a famed shipwreck, with only a single doubloon to show for it. Then one day, they're hired by an international couple who say they're looking for the same ship wreck. Carlton and Azra (David Anders and Marsha Thomason) are wealthy and mysterious and turn out to have a hidden agenda. And then they have another agenda hidden under that which gets explained in a scene that is literally jaw droppingly stupid.

In the midst of all that, a few girls show their breasts, there's some nicely filmed underwater scenes and the movie rolls out a total of 8 montages to kill time. Yes, I said 8 montages. The rule in cinema is generally that more than 2 montages means your film sucks, but 8 takes it to a completely different level. 8 montages moves beyond considerations of good and bad and almost turns this motion picture into a force of nature, like an earthquake or Galactus.

Now, this is a talented enough cast, director Stephen Herek looks like he knows what he's doing and the dialog isn't atrocious, but this script is dragged to the bottom of the sea by way too many creative requirements. Here's the most obvious one. The folks who made Into The Blue 2: The Reef wanted there to be nudity, and naked breasts do show up at regular intervals. Usually the lead actress is a big part of that, but these guys gave that part to Laura Vandervoort, who refused to get nude. She's beautiful and a decent actress and all that, but not being willing to take your clothes off should be a deal breaker for this kind of role. So, writer Mitchell Kapner was tasked with inserting a secondary female character into the story to do the nudity that Vandervoort wouldn't, which also required the insertion of a secondary male character so she'd have someone to do a sex scene with.

To his credit, Kapner tries to give those secondary characters their own storyline but it detracts from both the two leads and the villainous couple they face off with. It's this obtrusive third wheel that boggles up the plot, takes away characterization time from the stars of the show and it's blazingly obvious that it's only in the film because Vandervoort wouldn't show her glorious ta-ta's.

The screenplay is burdened with too many other things like that, from two painfully bad scenes with Audrina Patridge from MTV's The Hills to a treasure hunting movie ludicrously morphing into an espionage flick with an anti-war message to an ending so cheaply pulled off it can't possibly have been the original idea. This production spent a good chunk of money shooting a lot of expensive underwater footage and then it's big, explosive conclusion is almost Ed Woodian in its staging and execution.

I haven't seen Into The Blue, though I'm fairly certain Jessica Alba doesn't take her clothes off in it. Maybe if she had, these producers would have felt compelled to get an actress who would do the same, which would probably have made Into The Blue 2: The Reef significantly better. She didn't, so they didn't, so it's not.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

I can't believe that I actually sat through this.

3/10
Author: Evolution-X from United States
30 June 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Oh my goodness, where do I start? I remember hearing about this movie back in 2009 when I saw it on a shelf at Target back then. I remember being curious about it because I kind of enjoyed the first movie but in some ways, I was a little iffy about it. I remember wanting to watch it but I didn't buy it until October of last year but I didn't actually watch it until a few weeks ago, and man, I really wish that I didn't.

I am going to say this: I have SOMEWHAT of a thing for unrelated direct-to-video sequels. I know that a lot of them turn out not to be so good. Some are watchable. Some just happen to have the name slapped on it and it's the same thing but it turns out to be really bad. Few are actually good, and this is not one of those movies. It was really bad.

Now I am not going to deny that the movie has a lot of eye candy. It had some great visuals of Hawaii, great underwater sequences and of course, great looking women. Laura Vandervoort, Mircea Monroe, Marsha Thomason, Audrina Patridge, even some of the other female characters who we didn't get to know were all smoking hot. However, that's as far as I can go when it comes to the positives. Now on to the negatives.

The plot is almost a replica of the first film, yet there were some differences. The other couple in this one were more like a comic relief couple and didn't get them into the trouble that the couple in the first one did. Plus, it felt kind of predictable who the villains were. Right at the beginning, I kind of sensed that the British people were going to be revealed as the villains more than halfway through the movie but I saw it coming from a mile away. Second, what was the point in the little anti-war subtext that came out of left field? I understand that they tried to differ from the first one being the "illegal treasure" that is found at the bottom of the ocean was a nuclear weapon as opposed to drugs, but why bomb Hawaii? Also, another thing that I thought that was badly done was when they killed off Mircea Monroe's character. I get that in a lot of movies, there has to be at least one casualty in the protagonist group, but I really didn't think that her character needed to be iced unless the writers wanted it to resemble the first film. But in the first film, the reason the other girl died was because she got bit by a shark but she was somewhat of an antagonist anyway. This movie, on the other hand, didn't have a reason to kill her off and then later on, have a little funeral for her and then it was like it didn't happen. The actor could have shown that he was more broken up about his girlfriend's death than he actually did.

There are some more negative things that I could point out. One, the henchman who can't swim. I kind of chuckled when I saw that part when he was drowning at sea. Also, the mini subplot with Audrina Patridge's character coming up and talking all fast was really pointless and her boyfriend wasn't even a major character in the movie. Also, Laura's character making a fast recovery from hypothermia. Okay, I can let that one slide because it was a plot device and she had to go back to her boyfriend and friends eventually. But wait, this was a major goof if I ever saw one and I am sure I am not the only one who saw this: after she ran into a cop and her boyfriend's rival, they take the guy's boat to go find her boyfriend and friend. But that's not the bad part, the bad part is that we last saw her wearing a hospital gown but when we saw her meet up with her friends, we see her wearing a different shirt and you see the bikini string coming out of the shirt collar. Okay, for one thing, she wouldn't had enough time to go and change her shirt because she had to meet her friends to help them. Even she did have enough time, the best thing she could do is just get a shirt, not a bikini top along with it. I thought that was a major error when I saw it.

I could really go on about how bad this movie is. The first movie wasn't special either, but I found it entertaining in some areas. This movie, on the hand, had so many errors and it suffered from bad writing and bad directing. Some of the acting was decent, particularly from the villains, but other than that, it was a bad movie. Don't ever waste your time watching this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Good plot but things thrown in for no reason

4/10
Author: jordac02 from United States
31 May 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I loved the first movie but this one seemed to grasp sexual content and nudity too much, one scene was thrown in just for this content. It did not move the plot forward and it did not define a single character. It was only shown so the viewer could see nude women. However, this movie did a great job with filming. In action scenes it showed many shots that would make us respect Sebastion even more. The whole film also contributes to the ending where Sebastion and Dani come out on top and defeat the villains. The movie also makes me respect Dani more too because she was suspicious of their new clients the whole time. I respected Dani much more after this film. I also loved the beach volleyball scene that was so intense!

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Brainless but looks good

4/10
Author: dbborroughs from Glen Cove, New York
1 May 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Brainless film about a good looking but brainless couple who decide to live their dream and take people on diving tours. The pair almost instantly make the wrong choice of customers and get mixed up with some people seeking to recover the items that we see falling to the ocean floor during the opening credits sequence. Great looking direct to video movie could have been so much better if it wasn't so interested in primarily looking good. Performances are serviceable and the plot is actually not bad, or would have been had the director and producers not redirected the plot into making sure we see lots of shapely people in bathing suits (or in what I'm guessing the reason for the "unrated" moniker a few fleeting bare breasts). The film never generates any tension nor rises above the level of a forgettable TV movie. If you get roped in to seeing this you won't pluck your eyes out since the eye candy is pleasant but we really need to stop producers from making films that are excuses to have a paid vacation.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

So awful I'm still laughing.

1/10
Author: maryanne-stuartwilliam from New Zealand
18 March 2011

If you think that maybe this movie is not as bad as the reviews say....don't, unless you want to laugh at really really bad movie- making. If you think that maybe this movie is not as bad as the reviews say....don't, unless you want to laugh at really really bad movie- making. If you think that maybe this movie is not as bad as the reviews say....don't, unless you want to laugh at really really bad movie- making. If you think that maybe this movie is not as bad as the reviews say....don't, unless you want to laugh at really really bad movie- making.If you think that maybe this movie is not as bad as the reviews say....don't, unless you want to laugh at really really bad movie- making.If you think that maybe this movie is not as bad as the reviews say....don't, unless you want to laugh at really really bad movie- making.If you think that maybe this movie is not as bad as the reviews say....don't, unless you want to laugh at really really bad movie- making.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

not bad at all

6/10
Author: beregic (beregic@msn.com) from Canada
29 April 2009

while generally i find it a turn off when seeing 100% "preaty people as utterly unrealistic(this coming from a blonde one myself), for this particular feature it is bearable since it is an exotic adventure movie to start with = all comes down to exercising the imagination.

but the main aspect i truly enjoyed was the music score; great combination of uplifting sounds compounding many musical genres. this is a good movie to watch while preparing to leave for vacation...yes, very commercial at times but the feature does not pretend be more then what it is; a light pure entertaining plot(does not take itself too serious but good enough script to keep viewer in suspense)and full of visually rich cinematography(humans and nature).

if you liked "into the blue 1"-2005 and/or feel in an adventurous mood, then this one is for you.quiet a few scenes are literal rip-offs from the first one. my favorite actress was Marsha Thomason, great touch in moving plot forward . also the ending is not very predictable overall.

Was the above review useful to you?


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

Add another review


Related Links

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