Return to the Blue Lagoon (1991) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
48 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Not quite as good as the original, but interesting
rlcsljo21 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.
43 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not too bad
Mattu48131 July 2006
Warning: 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.
19 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Story very similar to the first, but with different characters. I enjoyed it.
TxMike6 May 2010
Warning: 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."
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Lukewarm leftovers
Leofwine_draca21 July 2013
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.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
leave expectations at the door and you'll enjoy!!!!
cpoe210 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.
22 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Wonderful sequel to a good movie
Demonicaura26 May 2011
Warning: 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.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Rehash of the first movie ... except for the last 25 minutes
workshyslacker3 April 2010
Warning: 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.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Why? I mean was a sequel that necessary?
Smells_Like_Cheese3 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.

29 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A watered down, cardboard cut-out of the original with not so satisfying edits
Dragoneyed36319 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
WARNING: I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.

Okay, let me start off by saying that I absolutely loved The Blue Lagoon and the only reason I gave this the rating I gave it is for their effort. Yes, I could tell they actually put in an effort to make this a satisfying sequel, but sadly failed.

Well, I'm going to start with the beginning. I like how they began where the first one left off by finding Richard and Em dead floating in the boat along with baby Paddy who survived, though they had been in a completely different looking boat, not laying on their stomachs, had been found by completely different looking people and the people who found them's boat looked completely different, but still, they made an effort. On into where Lilli, Richard (Paddy) and Sarah are shipwrecked. I like how they showed them finding the home Em and Richard inhabitant from the first film, though if I recall the house was on the beach not half-way into the woods and the inside looked (using this word again) completely different, but still, I loved how the movie actually gave an effort. Also, I liked how they gave an effort to make Sarah a more compelling parent figure as Paddy was in the first and they actually accomplished that, I felt a little sad when she died and I did not care one bit when Paddy did.

Well, then the rest of the film goes on and we see Lilli and Richard grow up. From then on out until about the last 20 or so minutes of the film are left, it is the exact same as the first! Nothing is new except the cast! Since this is rated PG-13 and the first was rated R, you get no actual compelling feelings and scenes as you did in the first, such as, in this you do not get to see the sex scene or any sex scene that leads up to their baby, when you did in the first and it made the film more touching and beautiful. The last 20 or so minutes as I said, they tried something new, and gave an effort by adding to the movie that people actually found the castaways on the island this time. I hated this change. Not because I hated the idea, they just went about it all wrong. So these people are landing on this island that isn't even on the map, as one of the passengers stated, why, the movie did not say. The idea that a very lady-like and civilized daughter would fall in love with this guy she just saw for the very first time on an island who has no interest in her at all and is uncivilized is very stupid and the idea that one of the crew members will deliberately chase Richard across the island to try and kill him just because they were what, in a fight, is stupid.

At the very end, there is a baby born which you do not care about at all in any way because the film spent absolutely no time at all on showing it grow up whatsoever, which they did in the first, and then it goes off. I have wrote so much and spilled my heart out about this sequel because I absolutely fell in love with the first and I thought this was very, very disappointing. Like I said, I didn't give this a lower rating because it actually does manage to entertain at a lot of points and the actors captured their parts rather well, I guess. As you can obviously tell by now, I thought they gave an effort at trying too and I found that respectable, but overall this was totally unnecessary and just left me wanting so much more. It makes the first look like a goldmine, which it already was a masterpiece anyway...
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This film rocks!
tnt_12329 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.
31 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A decent film in its own right
BabyFarkMcGeeZax19 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.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not As Good
Kittenn23 June 1999
I loved the original version, well, the 1980 original version, and I found this to be basically a copy which wanted to cash in on the success of the first. The theme was basically the same, with unnecessary violence added in.
17 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What is with the movie?
PsychMajor72612 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this movie for the first time last year because I loved the first one. What a mistake. I agree with other comments about the plot. I don't understand why they took the parents from the first film, who were alive at the end, and made them dead in this one. I really don't understand why the sailor at the end who tries to rape Lilli looks the same as the one at the beginning who the mother kills by bludgeoning him with a spear rifle. I don't understand why if Brooke Shields, at the age of 16, wasn't allowed to bare her breasts or rear end in the first one, why Milla was allowed to, at 16 also, bare hers in the second film. I could go on and on. There are a few things I enjoy about this film though. I am a major environmentalist and I have often wondered what it would be like to live on a deserted island with only yourself and your lover to depend on for survival. I think it would teach everyone the meaning of life and help all come to grips with reality. There is beautiful photography and music, composed by Basil Poledouris (also the first film's musical composer) of course!
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Fantastic Movie!
tash_rulz_eva20 September 2006
Personally, I love The Blue Lagoon Returns. It is such a beautiful film. I think that this movie shows people that nature and civilization are too completely different ways to live. You can also relate it to, living in the City or The Country. Too different ways to live. Milla does an outstanding performance, as does Brian. They both make the film fresh, in some ways. It is a great movie, and I totally recommend it. It is really natural, and I think that is refreshing. A lot of movies nowadays are about things that you would expect. But you wouldn't have expected a movie like this. Also, the Figi background and land, as you may call it, adds something. I think that the film makers did a splendid job, and I thank them for releasing such a good movie. One of my all time favorite's, would definitely be The Blue Lagoon Returns.
10 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Likable to a point
TheOtherFool4 April 2004
Warning: Spoilers
The first Blue Lagoon was one of the worst movies of all time, and I actually liked this one better. The acting seemed a lot more convincing, in particular if you compare Milla Jovovich to Brooke Shields.

The first half hour of the movie is a build-up to the fact that they're actually on the island, and takes on a bit too long. When the mother dies the movie takes the same steps as the first one, with the two main characters discovering their own and each others sexuality.

Then the movie takes a turn when our two cast-aways return to civilization when a ship comes by. Things complicate as a young woman is on board that takes a liking in Richard (Brian Krause), and a pirate-like guy who takes after Lilli (Jovovich) and her pearls.

Although the movie is kinda losing it at this point (with gunshots and a shark-attack), I preferred it over part 1 (which was a bore). Just one thing: isn't Jovovich showing a little bit too much skin for a 15 year old?

8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
they. didn't even actually follow the story setup from the first movie. and nobody caught that?
missem92 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
At the end of the blue lagoon, the first movie made in 1980, when the ship crew find Richard, Emmaline, and paddy, they are asked by Richards father if they were dead, where the crew announces 'NO, NONE OF THEM ARE DEAD. THEY ARE JUST SLEEPING.' And in the beginning of the second movie, return to the blue lagoon in 1991, different people find them and announce them dead in the boat in different positions. When they were found alive and asleep during the first movie. Im sorry, but how did not on critic or viewer notice this? Everyone is talking about how the story line is similar when nobody even noticed that a second movie was near impossible because Richard Emma and paddy were all living at the end of movie 1. I could accept that if they died after the fact from the berries, but to REdiscover them and have them be FOUND dead? Did the director, screenwriter, or any actors even watch the first movie before deciding on this one? It shouldn't even be able to grace being referred to as a sequel. The stories don't even match up.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Return to the Blue Lagoon -- Bad films coming full circle
jonathanruano22 March 2010
I can only think of one thing more incomprehensible than making a movie from a bad script and that is for a filmmaker to base his idea for a movie on another movie that is terrible. Normally directors try to rip off good movies, like the guy who directed "The Italian Connection" based on the "The French Connection" (good thinking because sometimes Americans confuse the French and the Italians), or the other fellow who directed the porno "American Booty" based on Sam Mendes' "American Beauty." And if all else fails, do a sequel like "Jaws II" based on the good "Jaws" or "Exorcist II" based on the great "Exorcist." I could go on, except I will be going off track and forgetting to tell you about the time when they decided to make the terrible "Return of the Blue Lagoon" based on the terrible "Blue Lagoon" which must have had the makers of sequels and rip offs scratching their heads.

The problem with "Return to the Blue Lagoon" is the same as the last film. It is not about anything. It seems that the filmmakers felt, in spite of the bad critical reception of the first Blue Lagoon, that an exotic island and two teenagers discovering sex and then fornicating (though we see none of that) was enough to create an entertaining film. Of course, the filmmakers did a little tweaking for this film. There is the sad background story which explains how the two kids got stuck on the island, like the last two kids. Who says that Carl Orff's Carmina Burana does not have any influence over film-making. There is also an egg competition, an encounter with a native, a seductive English girl from the outside and a lascivious sailor. But other than that, Lilli (Milla Jovovich) and Richard (Brian Krause) go through the same motions as Brooke Shields and Christopher Atkins as though they were destined to live the exact same lives as the previous couple on the island. What "Return to the Blue Lagoon" really is, if you think about it, is an unsexy pornographic movie for kids; a stage for kids to go through before they see the softcore and hardcore porn films. But even based on that sordid criteria, "Return to the Blue Lagoon" fails because even the sleaziest, worst acted pornos at least do something to your libido. "Return to the Blue Lagoon" does nothing because it has all the bad acting you would expect from a porno without any of any of the great sex (not least because the actors are underage). So if you are interested in a movie where a couple have lots of great sex on a deserted tropical island, watch Lina Wertmueller's "Swept Away by a Mysterious Destiny in the Blue Sea of August" instead. It has gorgeous pictures of a tropical paradise, far better acting, and you won't feel dirty and guilty by the end of the film because the actors, Giancarlo Giannini and Mariangela Melato, were both in their thirties (though they look like in the their twenties) at the time of filming.
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Oh God....the horror.
crazyrabbits15 November 2004
Oh boy. Where do I start...this movie...words are failing'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.
10 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
More beauty
deickos20 August 2017
In the second film though the main theme remains the same, there is more beauty to discover. Few movies are as relaxing as this one. The music of Basil Poledouris adds to the effect - it is one of the best ever written for the cinema. There are some clichés here and there but cannot mar the result. I honestly believe there must be something wrong with anyone that is not touched by the beauty in these movies.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
back to the beginning
SnoopyStyle11 April 2016
Richard and Emmeline Lestrange die leaving their son Paddy as the sole survivor. The rescue ship is overwhelmed with suspected cholera. Mr. Kearney, Mrs. Sarah Hargrave with her daughter Lilli, and Paddy renamed Richard are cast off in the lifeboat. Kearney threatens the toddlers and Sarah kills him. The trio ends up back at the original island. After Sarah's death, Lilli (Milla Jovovich) and Richard (Brian Krause) are left to themselves.

The story gymnastics are annoying as heck to make the sequel basically a repeat of the original. I'm sure anybody would be laughing with derision at the silly plot repeat. The original has the possibility of being a guilty pleasure. This is an unforgivable embarrassment for anybody who actually likes the sequel. I have nothing against the two young actors. Milla obviously has more acting abilities than the usual model. However, there is simply no point to this sequel for an unworthy franchise.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A More Idiotic Sequel To A Dumb Classic
Desertman847 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This sequel to the surprise box office hit The Blue Lagoon.It mimics its predecessor's romantic adventure formula of a lush tropical locale inhabited by scantily clad, nubile teens discovering their sexuality. This romance and adventure film stars Milla Jovovich and Brian Krause.It is produced and directed by William A. Graham. The screenplay by Leslie Stevens was based on the novel The Garden of God by Henry De Vere Stacpoole.

The film tells the story of two young children marooned on a tropical island paradise in the South Pacific. Their life together is blissful, but not without physical and emotional changes, as they grow to maturity and fall in love.Spotted adrift in a boat with his deceased parents Richard and Emmeline, a baby boy is rescued by a passing ship. Adopted by the widow Hargrove, infant Richard is soon at sea again after he, his new mother and her baby daughter Lilli abandon ship in the face of a cholera epidemic. Washing ashore on the same island populated by the first film's heroes, Hargrove protects and raises her young charges until a disease also claims her life. Years pass and both Richard and Lilli become young adults. While Richard discovers his manhood by racing a lagoon shark and spying on the island's dangerous natives, Lilli becomes a woman with her first period. Eventually their raging hormones lead the two into each other's arms. Marriage and a pregnancy follow, but Richard and Lilli's union is threatened by the arrival of a ship carrying a lovely captain's daughter with eyes for the loincloth-clad Richard.

The Fijian background looks pretty, but there's no escaping the fact that the tropical flowers and trees seem smarter and more appealing than the people.The visuals are the only good thing about this movie. And nothing else.

A testament to that is the Razzie nominations it received which are the following:

Worst Director - William A. Graham Worst New Star - Milla Jovovich Worst New Star - Brian Krause Worst Picture - William A. Graham Worst Screenplay - Leslie Stevens Young Artist Awards: Best Young Actress Starring in a Motion Picture - Milla Jovovich

Although it never won any award,it still reflects how poor this sequel was to a dumb classic movie.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
QueenMakeda8428 February 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this movie before I saw The Blue Lagoon and loved it. However, I saw its predecessor and saw the flaws in this movie's plot. First off, why did they kill Richard and Emmeline at the start of the movie when they were just asleep? And they were rescued by a different person. Richard's father found them in the last one. And they expect us to believe that a child could survive being on a boat with no food more so than the parents? After seeing that, my love for the movie began to dwindle. It completely turns around the ending of the first and I adore the first movie. I like the fact that they knew a little more and still had to contend with one another alone. The visitors near the end was good too, but they chickened out and stayed on the island to be left alone with their child. What kind of future would they give it with only the kid and it's siblings? More incest I suppose till the English or French colonize the island. Either way, the music was reminiscent of the first and I liked that. This movie was just disappointing little. You don't know why, but next to the first, it really isn't as good. The actors tried their hardest, but they were no Brooke and Chris. Nice film however.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What is new?
o_internauta28 February 2002
It is a good movie, of course. But comparing to the 1980 one, the Brooke Shields Blue Lagoon, this movie is nothing. Nothing new, and nothing sounds natural as the first one. For me is is just a bad copy made for money.
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of my all time faves
rivertam2631 May 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I feel like I shouldn't love this movie but I do. I wasn't a big fan of the original film a found it a tad boring and depressing bit I loved this sequel. It's more hopeful and engaging. Picking up right after the first film's events. The boat is found by a passing ship and only the baby has survived. The only woman on board takes charge of young Richard until suddenly they are forced off board with another crewmember, her daughter and Richard because there is an outbreak of cholera. After days at sea with no hope the crewmember tries to throw the children overboard and she kills him. Soon after they arrive at the island from the first film and grow into a handsome Brian Krause (Sleepwalkers) and the gorgeous Milla Jovovich (Resident Evil). Along the way incidents happen and soon enough they are faced with civilization. It's all dramatically engaging, romantic and suspenseful at times. It all moves forward towards a thrilling climax. The movie is shot gorgeously with solid performances. It still holds up as a intriguing romantic adventure.

Budget: $11m Box Office: $2.8m

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed