Customer Reviews

Return to Blue Lagoon (Full Screen Edition)

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

The first Blue Lagoon was daring and a bit controversial. It showed two children growing up without adults in their lives, growing up without inhibitions, without guidance, and learning some fundamental truths without help. It dared to show full-frontal nudity (carefully!) because that seemed natural. It had the courage to confront things like child birth for child-adults who had no idea of what was going on. That's some of what makes it a classic film, one which holds up even today.
This film, for all that it is a sequel, comes across as a revisionist attempt to "clean up" the original. It starts where the previous film left off, with a small boat being seen by a sailing vessel. Unlike the end of the previous film, where all three occupants of the boat are pronounced alive, in this film the parents are dead, and only the child survives. He is taken aboard the sailing vessel and entrusted to the care of a recently widowed woman who has an infant daughter. The woman, Sarah Hargreaves (Lisa Pelikan), and the two children, are cast adrift in a lifeboat a short while later because the ship is infected with cholera (a virtual death sentence for all aboard) - they are cast adrift in the hope they may survive. By pure happenstance (alright, by a piece of not-very-clever script-writing) they happen to arrive at an island that is supposed to look awfully familiar.
This time the children grow up with Sarah to teach them right and wrong, and all about God (she was a missionary), and so forth (all the things that were "wrong" in the first version). Eventually Sarah contracts pneumonia and dies, but not before she has time to explain how she'd like to be buried. Time passes and we get to see the new teenagers, Lilli (Milla Jovovich) and Richard (Brian Krause - best known as Leo in the TV show Charmed) doing the same sorts of things as we saw in the first film.
All in all, I cannot recommend this poor-quality remake. Buy the original, certainly, but leave this one sitting on the shelf. Perhaps the one good reason to watch this film is as an object lesson, to see what the original film could have been like, had the makers not taken the risks that they did.

I've also seen both Blue Lagoon stories, and like everybody else, was quite concerned with the lack of continuity and form between the two . . the child was older, the parents were sleeping/dead. . and whatever happened to the loyal dad floating around at sea that found his kids finally sleeping in that little dinghy?

However, I was able to suspend reality and enjoy the second film by altering the first in my own mind. I have to say that as far as the berries were concerned, I always DID think that Paddy (the baby) had a better chance of survival as he only swallowed a berry or two. His parents each masticated (chewed) 20 - 25 berries each and swallowed them down. Much more opportunity for poison to openly enter the blood stream. But I digress...

The second movie, while not as "brave" as the first in terms of "raw" sensuality was still quite enjoyable, I thought. I rather enjoyed the idea of two children who had "some" learning from a parent who had adequate time to teach them then left on their own. It combined a different take than the first film. In this film, the children have "some" idea of the values and mores of European civilization, but have to adapt those values to fit within their own experience. In the first film, the children were quite simply too young and alone for far too long to really understand much of anything except what they learned on their own. Because of these differences, I was able to enjoy each film in it's own right.

I think both films are worth a look, but if pressed, I would still have to choose the original as the best of the two . . as originals usually are.

Even tough The Return to the Blue Lagoon got me to think the first time that I heard about it that well finally I would know what happened at the end, well I was disappointed. Like most I guess. But explain to me how can you kill to persons whom in the first one where alive. Unless they died of dehydration. But I think the movie would have been more fun if they showed us a Richard and Em in San Francisco or wherever they where going to, trying to adjust to life, seeing Richards face when people explained to him that Paddy was his son, because if you didn't noticed, he didn't have a clue about anything. And then...tatatatannnn Richard and Em return with Paddy to the blue lagoon because honestly they felt like strangers. Wouldn't that be more fun to watch? I think it was cruel to kill them. When it was much fun and creative to let them live. Adjust. The return doesn't even compare. Even the nude scenes on the first can't be called nudity, is art, because they where beautifully done. But what the heck. I still bought both of them so.

This as I stated Previously with the blue lagoon, Return To the Blue Lagoon is a must have collectable for lolita lovers everywhere, and a must own for the libraries of "Coming of age" romance enthusiasts.

Return to the Blue lagoon is probably one of my favorite "rent" movies. It really cheers you up if you are having a bad day, and puts you in the romantic mood. This movie basically moves right along, and by the time you get to the romance, it's finished. This movie is not to long, but not to short. Although, it does have many differences than The Blue Lagoon, with Brook Shields. To get a better knowledge of the movie, it is best to see both of them! So don't hesitate to rent both the blue lagoon, and Return to the blue lagoon. I love this movie so much, that I even have a picture of it, with Brian Krause framed.

I really enjoyed this film.I thought that it was cute how they tied in the first Blue lagoon and didn't just make a storyline not having to do with the first one.I thought there wasn't too much nudity(unlike the first film),and that the actors had fun with the roles.This film is good for a date or just to hang out with a couple of good friends.

I bought this dvd to replace my vhs copy of the film. However when I started watching it I noticed that some of the scenes had been edited and that the rating had been changed from PG13 to PG. If it had not been for the editing I would have given this film three stars. However because it is edited I cannot in good conscience give it more than one star.

I didn't actually know that this was a sequel until I read the reviews on Amazon.com. I watched this movie and Saturn Home Cinema and it absolutely blew me away like a rocket. It was quite sad in places as well as been happy, sometimes scary and very exciting. I didn't know it was old either, I thought it was a movie from 97 or 98 but it is actually a movie from 1991 which took me by suprize because this is the kind of thing we want for the "later" nintys. Excellent.

I did not buy this video but I did watch it on TV. However, it is enough for me to get the moral of the story. If most people will talk about the beauty appearances of the actress and actor or the island and the lagoon, I prefer to look deeper than the skin. This movie proposes us the new meaning of civilized and civilization. While most people think that civilized people come from the high civilization, this movie proves the contrary. From the story, we can conclude that advanced civilization does not always produce civilized society. In fact, the modest, or even somewhat primitive main characters are able to show the real meaning of civilized people; respect and love each other, keep the friendship alive, avoid the actions leading to conflict, and live harmoniously with nature. For us now, would we still consider that the civilized people ALWAYS come from the high civilization? Well, think again and look around you!

It took 11 years for a sequal to Blue Lagoon to come out. Why there would or could ever be a sequal, I don't really know. The first was more overtly sensual and raw than this one could have been, but, it is, after all, the same movie with different actors.

The son of Richard and Em, RIchard Jr., is rescued at sea when his parents (Christopher Atkins and Brooke Shields) were attempting to leave their island home and died drifting on their boat. The rescuing ship sinks, and a woman with Richard Jr. and her daughter, Lilly, will be marooned on an island in the South Pacific. The woman dies soon after of illness, and Richard and Lilly are left alone on the island, to relive just what Brooke and Chris did in the first movie.

I wonder why they felt they had to make a sequal to a movie like Blue Lagoon. Once the story was over, it was just over. How could the story continue and why did it have to? I would have liked to see Richard Jr. be taken back to civilization and lead a civilized life. THAT would be something. And Richard Jr. and Lilly look just like their predecesors, and have every experience they had. The only exception to this was the inclusion of the mother figure at the beginning on the island. Here it was established that they learned some social, language, and survival skills from her, making their long existence on the island alone a little more believable.

Even the scenery wasn't as beuatiful as the first one's, but it was still wonderful. Who wouldn't want a sandy beach for just a day or two to lounge about on? And with a handsome man at that. But it's just fluff.