User Reviews

I have always liked this film, and don't like it when it is criticized so much. Brooke Shields and Christopher Atkins did a wonderful job, they were excellent. Brooke is a beautiful, talented actress. The scenery was just gorgeous, it makes you want to fly off to Fiji where they filmed most of the movie to see what it is really like. The music is also very good. The story starts out with a ship which catches fire, and everyone is forced to abandon ship. Two young children, Richard and Emmeline, as well as a drunken cook named Paddy, get on a lifeboat together and drift on the sea for many days, until they discover land, a bunch of little remote tropical islands. They build a home there. Time passes, and Paddy passes away, but Richard and Emmeline continue growing up together. They get older, and new feelings come over them. They discover many things about adolescence and sex. This is a great love story, sweet and lovable. Brooke and Chris make a great onscreen couple. The sex/nudity scenes are not really that bad at all, they're rather mild. There is more nudity in the underwater swimming sequences, but mostly all of that was done by Brooke's stand-in, a professional diver. I really like this movie, and even though there are a few logic loopholes, it is still enjoyable. My only complaint: I think this film could've gone on for about 5 more mins. or so and explained things a little bit better.

Often while watching this movie I asked myself, How would filmmakers tackle this or that scene today, 25 years later? And while I am certainly not going to applaud 'The Blue Lagoon' as an overlooked masterpiece, CERTAINLY not!, it is still a far cry better than the standard teenage soft-porn that is on offer today.

Basically, 'The Blue Lagoon' is about two horny teenagers finding their own path towards sexual fulfillment and adulthood, and it strives to point the way for its multitudes of teenage audiences with some dignity and even fearlessness. Today footage of completely naked infants as well as pre-teens and teens would simply never be realized or even permitted in mainstream OR art cinema, God forbid! Brooke Shields' frank alluding to Christopher Atkins' masturbatory habits could, in a movie today, only be filmed amidst a sea of giggles, whereas in 1980 they did it very deadpan and honestly.

The film is full of quite touching scenes and gently, if not exactly marvelously acted. I liked Atkins' prayer that the sick Shields be saved, and he doesn't remember how a prayer goes: "Our Father who art in Heaven ... Kingdom come ... Liberty and justice for all. Amen". They don't lead terribly eventful lives on that desert island, but their everyday rituals are beautifully filmed, and the underwater sequences are memorable.

Beautiful young people starring in a beautifully shot, silly movie. This won't win any award, but I know it holds a special place in the teenage hearts of lots women of a certain age.

i have not seen this film in many years, and saw it unedited last week on TCM. when i was a boy, the film's main appeal was in its edenic milieu, its charged moments of wonder and terror, and brooke shields' extraordinary beauty and gamine charm. those qualities are all still there. But the film tells another story that i missed before: two children ripped from civilization struggle to make sense of the world and themselves. this is no rousseau inspired romp. the pulse and power of natures' force wrecks them, engulfs them, confines them and finally asserts itself through em and dick. the question is begged: where does human will and intellect figure in chaos of pubescence, sexuality and love? how helpless or powerful are we to control the furies of love or sex? more helpless than not, the filmaker seems to be saying. kleiser interposes the stereopticon pictures of the staid victorian couple with similar scenes of em and dick to highlight this point. naked or clothed, in a drawing room or on a beach, we all experience the torrent of love in very much the same way. instinct races ahead, sense chases behind in confusion. "blue lagoon" tells a timeless human story in a very simple style. this movie is better for talking to kids about growing up than any 10 sex education pamphlets. and if an adult cannot remember how this felt when they were young, a little part of them has already died. a good movie

Imagine being stranded on an island with one other person as a junior high age kid. This happens to a boy and a girl when they are with a crew sailing on a smaller vessel and it wrecks. The boy and girl along with an old jolly fellow make it to shore. Stranded, they learn to live on an island as he takes care of them. The old timer dies when the kids are pre-teen age. All alone on the island, the boy and girl survive and grow up without any guidance while navigating puberty together. That makes for some interesting and awkward situations as they have no knowledge of what to expect as they grow older. Almost like living as a cave man/woman without parents.

The Blue Lagoon is one of those strangely captivating movies. A unique storyline, and well cast characters. For two young actors they manage to portray compelling chemistry and honesty. Though of course the two people growing up on a semi deserted island would just happen to be absolutely gorgeous.

THE BLUE LAGOON enjoys something of a cult reputation these days after proving an enormous success on first release and recuperating its own budget many times over. It's a simple enough story about a young boy and girl who are stranded on a tropical island, but instead of the usual survival elements of the story the focus is on their developing sexual relationship.

I admit it's not particularly the type of film I find interesting but the stunning Fijian locations were enough to keep me watching. Unfortunately the acting from the clearly inexperienced leads is less than impressive and wooden in places and seasoned performers such as the ever delightful Leo McKern have all too little screen time. Sure, Brooke Shields and Christopher Atkins may be superficially beautiful but they're able to reveal little below the surface.

Instead of getting more gripping as the story progresses, I found that this film actually got less interesting as it focuses more deeply on the relationship between the characters. The so-called sexual tension is handled in a rather twee and dated fashion and the ending feels tacked-on instead of a natural development of the plot - you think they're either incredibly lucky or wonder why they didn't try it long before.

After directing the hugely successful GREASE Randal Kleiser saw his star gradually waning with the final inevitability of making TV movies and straight-to-DVD releases. THE BLUE LAGOON reveals him to be a workmanlike character rather than a real auteur with a love of his material so it's no surprise that he faded into obscurity after one brief blast of fame.

The Blue Lagoon (1980) starring Brooke Shields and Christopher Atkins is a classic teenage movie. The acting by both of the lead actors certainly isn't Oscar winning by any means, in fact at some moments it's really bad. They were young actors at the time and weren't all that experienced, so I'll take it easy on them. At least they were attractive, as many audience members commented. I know all the ladies and gay guys really enjoyed seeing Christopher Atkins shirtless and seeing his bare backside. And I'm sure the straight guys enjoyed Brooke Shields. A lot of teens in 1980 said that it was the sexiest thing they had ever seen, which is hard for our generation to understand I'm sure. But yes, it's true, the blue lagoon is sexy. So if you want a movie with eye candy actors, mild sexual scenes that aren't graphic in nature, this might be for you. The film's plot is pretty good, but the script lacks intelligence. The movie just really suffers when it comes to the dialogue and the acting by the leads. Yes, the scenery is beautiful and yes, it's sexy. Although, other than its sexiness and pretty scenery, it's just not all that much to see. I'm giving The Blue Lagoon 6/10 stars for its sexiness, pretty scenery, and it's interesting plot.

Ever since at least the eighteenth century, the "desert island", the uninhabited tropical island with golden beaches fringed with palm trees, has frequently been depicted in Western culture as the nearest one can get to paradise on earth, in literature, the cinema and even in advertising campaigns. (The makers of the "Bounty" chocolate bar have for decades centred their entire marketing strategy around this concept). In the twentieth century writers, such as William Golding in "Lord of the Flies", Alex Garland in "The Beach" and J G Ballard in "Rushing to Paradise", started to subvert this idea, but "The Blue Lagoon", based on a novel from 1908, is a film which takes it largely at face value.

The film is set in the late Victorian period. Two young children, Richard and Emmeline, survive a shipwreck in the South Pacific and are stranded on a lush tropical island along with a seaman named Paddy Button. Paddy dies not long afterwards, but not before he has taught the children the skills they need to survive on the island. Richard and Emmeline grow up and turn into beautiful teenagers, fall in love, and have a child of their own. At which point…… Well, you'll have to watch the film to find out what happens at this point.

An earlier version of the story was filmed in 1949. It is a long time since I last saw that film, but I recall that (as one might expect of a film from the forties) it contains far less nudity and sexual activity than does the 1980 version. The 1980 film was, in fact, quite controversial, largely because the actress playing Emmeline, Brooke Shields, was only 14 years old at the time of filming. (Two years earlier, Shields had starred in the even more controversial "Pretty Baby" about a child prostitute). It was later revealed that body doubles were used in the sex scenes, but even so many people were shocked by the film's sexual frankness and especially by nude scenes which appeared to feature a girl so young. (One thing which aroused surprisingly little comment is the fact that Richard and Emmeline are first cousins, even though cousin marriage is illegal in many American states).

The film was a success at the box office, probably because of its sexual explicitness and the good looks of its two young stars, but today it has a very dated feel. Much of the problem lies in the fact that its stars appear to have been cast on the basis of their looks alone, without regard to acting activity. Shields, in fact, had the dubious honour of winning the first ever "Worst Actress" Razzie. It may have been cruel to give such an award to a teenage girl (Farrah Fawcett-Majors probably deserved it more for "Saturn Three"), but it has to be admitted that Shields is not very good here. She had given a good performance in "Pretty Baby", but the transition from child star to teenage star can be a difficult one, and here she seems horribly embarrassed and self- conscious and, moreover, does not always speak her lines clearly. It might have been better if an older actress aged about 18 or 19 had been cast in the role. Richard and Emmeline are supposed to be around the same age, but Shields is in fact four years younger than her co-star Christopher Atkins, and it shows. Casting an actress in her late teens would also have removed any controversy about underage nudity.

As for Atkins, this was his first film. He has, apparently, gone on to enjoy a long acting career, although I do not recall seeing any of his later films; the only subsequent part I remember him in was as Sue- Ellen's toyboy in "Dallas". His career has been much longer, I suspect, than many would have predicted for him on the basis of "The Blue Lagoon", where he is very stiff and wooden, with little chemistry between him and Shields. The best acting performance comes from the veteran Leo McKern as Paddy, playing him as a mixture of kindly father- figure and drunken old reprobate; the film loses a lot of interest after his death relatively early on.

There are a few holes in the plot. It appears that the island is inhabited by, or at least regularly visited by, a tribe of people (portrayed here, in the best politically incorrect fashion, as bloodthirsty cannibals), but it is never explained how these inhabitants manage to go at least ten years without discovering two strangers living on their island. It might have been more plausible if Paddy had remained alive for longer; the small children we see in the early scenes seem too young to be capable of surviving on their own. And how does Richard manage to stay so clean-shaven throughout? (Presumably the film-makers felt that a bearded Atkins would have seemed much less cute to the teenage girls who made up a large part of the film's intended audience).

Visually, the film is an attractive one, with some striking photography of the island and its wildlife. The cinematographer Néstor Almendros was nominated for a "Best Cinematography" Oscar, the only nomination the film achieved. Overall, however, "The Blue Lagoon" is really no more than yet another sentimental teenage romance movie with an exotic setting and two miscast stars. Its only distinction lies in being possibly the only feature film to have made a greater contribution to science than to the arts. Some scenes were shot on a small island in Fiji, and a herpetologist watching the film realised that the iguanas featured were a species hitherto unknown to science. Today it is classified as the Fiji Crested Iguana (Brachylophus vitiensis); they should have called it Brachylophus bluelagoonii. 4/10

Oh, come on. I know more than a few people who enjoyed "The Blue Lagoon". This is actually a wonderful story and yes, there a more than a few questions. I mean, how do two children survive on a deserted island? I'm not sure, but the story worked well.

This is a true love story, because it comes from natural love. This isn't like "You're the only girl/boy on this island, so...". This was more of "I'm falling in love with this woman/man." Their love for each other was so unique and wonderful that it makes you want to be on a deserted island with someone. Plus having Christopher Atkins or Brooke Sheilds as your partner helps somewhat too. :D It's a great movie that I feel is a bit under rated. Give it a chance.

7/10

it's too bad this uses a lot of beautiful photography of a very beautiful island. If only it used shoddy backdrops for scenery, then it would stand as the masterwork of the "so bad it's funny!" genre (if we can call it that).

Unfortunately, with all this lush scenery, our eyes, pained with having to look at these teen-age twerps trying to act, drift repeatedly to the background, where the breeze gently teasing the palm leaves reminds us that time is passing, and we feel morbidly paralyzed by boredom, horrifyingly reminded that, for the lurid expectation of a voyeuristic glimpse of teen-age lust (however briefly - very briefly), we are letting our lives just waste away as we try to find some image or line of dialog of any meaning or importance - but this never arrives. So we flow grudgingly along a slow current of sludge into the lagoon where we are so buried under poor writing and atrocious acting, we are forced to confront the eternal question of human life: "Is this it?! Is this all there is?!" and hope - longingly, lovingly - for a painless death....

Or we switch the channel to the Cartoon Network and find some reason for being alive. "SPAAACE GHOOOST!"

I can't believe someone can say this is a great movie! What makes it great? Beautiful scenes of paradise island? If you like such scenes, than don't watch movies, find some screen savers with those motives instead. There are a plenty of them. I feel insulted by the authors. I don't know who wrote a bad story, the book writer or the movie writer, and I don't care. Numerous stupidities insults my intelligence. For example, under-teen kids don't know anything about pregnancy, but are very skilled in building a cabin, and what a cabin! Like a 3-star hotel bungalow, with several levels, floors, balconies... (I am 35, I wouldn't be able to make such an object within my whole life). The parody in "Top secret" movie was very clear. Than, I can accept that 8 years old kids hadn't seen pregnant woman ever before and that they know nothing about pregnancy, but I CAN'T accept the same kids perfectly know how to cut the umbilical cord of a newborn child. At the same time, they'd never heard of or seen mothers suckle their babies! Ridiculous! Than, it is also pretty impossible to share such a small island with savages and never to be seen by them for several years. These few examples are enough for me to consider this movie a peace of crap. I gave 2/10 only for some really nice scenes of nature and two young beautiful people. And yes, I'm not sure whether the parrots have been credited, but they should have been!

Although panned by most critics, this film represents something we all want: love and beauty. Beauty, on more levels than just Brooke Shields' tan, in being true love, without the "corruption" of western culture, feelings of guilt or shame. Though being called unrealistic- is it really? If we all went back to a simpler way of life, cut through the complicated nature of everyday life, could we not be more stable, and find true love? I enjoyed this film, it was witty, innocent, and beautiful.

i like to think of myself as a seasoned movie goer...........its 26 years old..I'V never seen it till tonight.........wait a beautiful film .....liked it as they they taken innocence beyond adolescence i cant believe this film has a 4.7 out of ten....can u imagine the kind of life you are gonna lead being on a desert island from the age of 6/7 think about the dialogue within the movie most of it was appropriate to the story .....i.e. no adult contact for many years..a beautiful film with a gorgeous cast c,Mon guy n gals ...give this film a bit of respect ! apparently an early Brooke Shields movie ...but ain't she gorgeous all I'm gonna say is a very underestimated film and I'm glad i got round to seeing it

I do not understand why nobody practically liked this movie. As it is possible classics like this will be classed with 9% while horrible movies like Sharknado has 85% in Rotten Tomatoes. The Blue Lagoon is one of the best classics of the 80's, and one of the best rumors ever. Of course it's far from the best movie ever, but still pretty good. Gathering too much. I just did not like the ending.

This movie is a waste of time - I shouldn't even waste my time reviewing it. But I will, to warn others not to waste their time. This is a shameless picture, marketed to young teens, in spite of the "R" rating. Who else would find Shields and Atkins parading around half-naked appealing? The script stinks, with way too much time spent on them discovering their bodily maturations. And the acting... UGH! Yes, I know they are developmentally and intellectually stunted by growing up on an island by themselves - so, no I wasn't expecting earth shattering dialogue. But what dialog was there, I expected to be delivered with some semblance of true feeling and genuine emotion. Instead, you have 2 stiffs acting ridiculous.

And who let's their 14 year old daughter act in a movie with the themes and nudity in here. Utterly disgusting. I know they used a body double for Shields nude scenes, but this still borders on child pornography to me.

OK - I've not actually seen 9 1/2 weeks. But I wanted a suitable summary title.

When I first saw this romantic fantasy, aged 16 and I was 'undecided' and, frankly fancied both the grown-up girl and boy castaways as they naturally, but reluctantly fell into love. Natural, unforced nudity is clean and pure and to witness these two heavenly creatures being human mermaids was - and frankly is, still a joy. I strongly felt at the time that Brooke Shields was the most perfect creature on God's Earth, because of her part in this film.

The storyline to this oft derided tale of Castaway romance is straight out of a Disney feature. All it needs is a shaggy dog (or is that the story itself?) to complete it.

You know, shipwrecked as a couple of young kids, an Ooh-arghh of a pirate like uncle to raise them and somehow they grow up in perfect health and when the old man snuffs it they still have perfect health and an idyllic life together. An ever-present mysterious enemy never really causes more than the odd bad dream. And no one ever gets sunburned.

Viewing again after a decade, I find the trite dialogue painful, the ridiculousness of the scenarios gaping and obvious. In mid-winter Britain, now, however, this tropical paradise fable is a perfect antidote to real life.

Nostalgically, The Blue Lagoon will always have a special, but seldom spoken of place in my heart. Those of who "do", will and those who "don't" will never. And I totally understand why. Whichever camp someone is in.

There are many stories about the sea and shipwrecks. Here is one of the more controversial, due in part because of censors, not the beautiful drama. It is the story of two children who experience a violent storm and ship disaster which culminates in their being stranded, shipwrecked and given up for dead. However their luck is not all bad, they happen to be fortunate enough to have an experienced seaman named Paddy Button (Leo McKern) who deems it necessary to teach the two kids, Richard (Christopher Atkins) and Emmeline (Brooke Shields) how to survive on a deserted island. When their teacher is no longer able to continue their education, the two children grow up alone. The story is honest and allows much lea-way into what might happen as they learn to exist without adult guidance. Safe to say, director Randal Kleiser creates a wonderful and idea world for them allowing them to self-discover who and what they are. Writer Henry Stacpoole's dialog is simple and uncomplicated and together they created a stirring memory in the hearts and minds of anyone who longs to be stranded on an equally Blue island location. ****

Two kids (cousins!) become stranded on an island with a fat old drunk who yells a lot. Eventually the drunk dies and they're left to fend for themselves. As the kids become teenagers, they turn into Christopher Atkins and Brooke Shields. It's at this point that the movie becomes what it's famous for being: two attractive teens discovering sex in the wild. Most people are either going to think this is a story of innocent love unhindered by societal conventions or they'll see it as a cheap piece of exploitation. I'm trying my best to view it as the former but the cynic in me finds it hard to deny that the latter is probably the only reason this was green-lit in the first place. For the record, if you haven't seen it, the nudity does not only come from Atkins and Shields (or her adult body double in some scenes) but from the pre-teen children playing the younger versions of their characters as well.

Judging the movie on its technical merits, it's pretty hard to deny that the gorgeous island scenery and the nice score are big pluses. But the story is paper thin and the acting is atrocious. There is potential for a good movie here, if it were treated as a realistic story of two kids struggling to survive while also dealing with growing into puberty with no adults around to guide them. But director Randal Kleiser is more focused on flesh peddling and the single most insipid romance to ever hit the screen. As it is, we're left with a curiosity that isn't a good film at all but will hold a salacious appeal for some viewers.

I've never understood the critical slam this film has received. Then I saw the widescreen dvd version and understood; everyone has been watching it in pan and scan! The film is a visual poem. So much of the story telling is done through visual information. The impact of this is lost when the cinematography is altered. Remember that Nestor Almendros received an Academy Award nomination for his work on this film. The film has resonated with global audiences for so long for this very reason. I suggest people watch the dvd commentary with Randal Kleiser and Brooke Shields to get a better understanding of why this film is still such a popular one.

People attack the acting, but these are children left alone with no one to guide them into adult sophistication. Their interaction and reactions to situations are very consistent with this scenario. Yes, the birth scene is a little rushed, but do we really need to see the umbilical cord? Not all films need to be about gritty reality, ala "Taxi Driver." No one asks to see the bloody guts of the smashed witch in "The Wizard of Oz."

It is a beautiful, romantic film that speaks to millions of people. It seems that only the most skeptical cynics cannot embrace this film.

It's late 19th century. Young Richard Lestrange, his widowed father and orphaned cousin Emmeline Lestrange are on a clipper to San Francisco. Fire engulfs the ship and the cook Paddy Button (Leo McKern) takes the kids into a lifeboat. They get separated from the other lifeboat by the fog and land on a tropic island in the Pacific. They find skulls, signs of natives, and a cast of rum. Paddy drowns after a drunken binge. Richard (Christopher Atkins) and Emmeline (Brooke Shields) move to an isolated beach building a new home.

This is hormone cinema wrapped in a Swiss Family Robinson adventure. The hormone cinema is cringe-worthy. This is not a subtle movie. It is deliberately pushing out the young flesh for public consumption. However as a young boy, this was a guilty pleasure. I can't complain about the sincerity of the young actors. This is generally a bad movie but everybody can like a few of those.

Wow. Gorgeous island photography. A lush music score designed to generate two full hours of spine-shivers. A pair of absolute hunks attracting more audience jealousy than a Clark Gable or a Grace Kelly could ever hope for. Dialogue cleverly scripted to suggest a truncated childhood education. And all of this for one purpose only: To wrap a huge dose of titillating kiddie-porn inside a package with enough pretenses of respectability to survive in mainstream movie theaters. And, judging from all the rave reviews I'm seeing on IMDb, the perpetrators of this "love story" achieved just what they desired. Likewise, the vast majority of the movie's audience got exactly what they expected and wanted -- and anybody who denies they "wanted" it is fooling him- or herself.