Watch it at Amazon
16 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :- Not quite as good as the original, but interesting, 21 June 2001 Author: rlcsljo from Hollywood, ca
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.
7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :- What is with the movie?, 12 January 2005 Author: PsychMajor726 from United States
*** This comment may contain 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!
15 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :- Why? I mean was a sequel that necessary?, 3 December 2003 Author: Kristine (kristinedrama14@msn.com) from Chicago, Illinois
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.3/10
5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :- Not too bad, 31 July 2006 Author: Mattu481 from United States
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.
5 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :- leave expectations at the door and you'll enjoy!!!!, 10 January 2006 Author: cpoe2 from United States
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.
6 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :- No where as good as the original, 19 December 2005 Author: haglette from Australia
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...
8 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :- Likable to a point, 4 April 2004 Author: TheOtherFool from The Netherlands
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?5/10.
A Watered Down Cardboard Cut-Out Of The Original With Not So Satisfying Edits, 19 April 2009 Author: Dragoneyed363 from United States
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 anyway...
Returning to the well again., 28 March 2008 Author: Poseidon-3 from Cincinnati, OH
Picking up where "The Blue Lagoon" (made about 11 years prior) left off, but changing the ending somewhat in order to facilitate the new story, this sequel made barely a ripple at the box office. When the original boy and girl are found dead in their boat by a small ship, their still-alive son is rescued and put in the care of young mother and widow Pelikan. However, soon afterwards, the crew begins to contract and spread cholera and so Pelikan, her new son and her infant daughter are put out to sea in a dinghy in the hopes that they can avoid death from the disease. Eventually, she and the children wash up on the same island from the first film and are conveniently able to live in the same elaborate tree house. The years go by and the children grow into tan, athletic Krause and nubile beauty Jovovich. With Pelikan having died before they reached puberty, the kids are left to figure out most of the facts of life themselves, all set amidst beautiful island scenery and backed by lush music provided by Basil Poledouris. Much like the first film, the kids fish, bathe, argue and make love while the threat of headhunters on the north die of the island looms. Where this film differs is in the arrival of civilization, so to speak, in the form of sea captain Blain, his precocious daughter Coburn and a crew of grizzled sailors. Krause and Jovovich soon learn that sometimes civilization is not as civilized as life in the wild. Pelikan bears most of the weight of the first half of the film and does a reasonably good job of it. She's given the unenviable task of acting most of her scenes either alone or opposite a couple of small children. Krause and Jovovich do not appear until nearly 45 minutes into the movie. Krause, who bears quite a likeness at times to Heath Ledger, is appealing enough, but suggests nothing beyond a neatly coiffed, California beach boy playing Lord of the Flies. He doesn't really get to cover any territory that wasn't already handled by his predecessor Christopher Atkins. Jovovich is stunning to look at, and performs admirably as well, but, again, is stuck redoing what Brooke Shields already did. Thus, the film, despite a few tweaks in the formula, comes off as an imitation or remake of the previous one. People who never watched the first film will likely be able to enjoy this one more than those who are fans of the original (not even counting the versions filmed in 1923 and 1949!) Coburn is appropriately snotty and manipulative, perhaps too convincingly so since she was scarcely heard from again after this! Entertaining enough on its own terms, it is certainly no classic and is fairly preposterous, but is also not the dog some people have made it out to be. It's basically a rehash, made in an attempt to wring a few more bucks out of a concept that worked well the first time.
1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :- Repeats, Romance, and Rivalry, 6 May 2002 Author: Kendra (psychocharlie13@attbi.com) from Seattle
This review WILL contain SPOILERS. You have been warned. I was intrigued by this movie. I had seen The Blue Lagoon only a few months before, and although I felt a little guilty by betraying my "heroes", I rented 'Return' anyway. One thing I noticed is that it made a lot of repeat shots of the first movie. Several scenes, such as one of the swimming scenes, and one of the waterfall slide scenes, and more, are repeated in this sequel. One thing that disappointed me is that they gave the boy his father's name even though they had no way of knowing it. The romance in this movie is compelling, though somewhat unprovoked. One or two fights and dangerous escapades and they're all growed up and ready to get married. But since they are sincere, it's alright. Another disappointment is that they get married. What use could marriage vows be in a place where no one else existed. I also resented the portrayal of the island's tribal visitors as "heathens". And, despite all these things, and despite the arrival and cunning of Sylvia, I still like this movie. But I don't reccomend it if you are loyal to The Blue Lagoon. As for myself, I will never be watching this movie again, unless I absolutely cannot help it.
Add another comment
