The Blue Lagoon (1980)
Facts
| Directed by | Randal Kleiser |
| Cast | Brooke Shields, Christopher Atkins, Leo McKern, William Daniels and Elva Josephson |
| Theatrical Release | July 5, 1980 |
| MPAA Rating | R (Restricted) |
| Buy this item ... | 1 used from $74.27 |
About The Blue Lagoon
The cinematography by Néstor Almendros garnered him an Oscar nomination. Unfortunately, the performance by then child star Brooke Shields garnered her a nomination, too--for a Razzie Award. She won, he didn't.
This 1980 remake of a much classier, 1949 British version features Shields and Christopher Atkins as children shipwrecked on a lush tropical island. They grow to maturity and fall in love, with the script paying special attention to their burgeoning sexuality. Should you desire more trite dialogue, there is an even less satisfying sequel, 1991's Return to the Blue Lagoon. --Rochelle O'Gorman Amazon.com
Website Links
- Movie Review Query Engine - Directory of movie reviews.
- IMDb - Features plot summaries, reviews, cast lists, and theatre schedules.
- Art.com - Search for The Blue Lagoon posters.
Similar Movies
User Reviews
Average user review:| A Movie About Self Education On Paradise |
For instance, in this movie Emeline(Brooke Shields) and Richard(Christopher Atkins) didn't know it was inappropriate to skinny dip, what a period was or what sex was or how babies were made or how to feed a baby, or even how to pronounce "San Francisco", etc.
Therefore, Richard & Emi end up educating themselves when they make love for the very first time and then when they end up making a baby eventually after doing hubba hubba so many times after Emi gets to like sex, yet Richard & Emi still can't figure out how or why Emi got pregnant and why Emi had a baby, since Richard ends up asking Emi after their baby is born "Why did you have a baby", since they obviously still had no clue that sex between a man and woman is what makes babies.
The nude scenes were also quite interesting too, especially when they skinny dipped showing everything, but Brooke Shields coochie and the baby learning how to swim in the ocean by itself too, but I wonder if that's possible in real-life.
I also agree with Steed on finding it odd why they showed more nudity on Christopher Atkins by showing Christopher Atkins pecker and not Brooke Shields coochie, especially since male nudity is more rare than female nudity is, despite the fact that they showed Brooke's tatas when she breast feeds their baby for the first time when Richard and Emi discover that's how you start out feeding babies when they're newborns.
November 10, 2008
| This is one trashy camp classic... |
The film is a remake of a 1949 British film (I have not seen it but I just might since it is labeled as `classier' and this trash could have used some class) and it follows two cousins (kissing cousins) as they are left destitute on an island after the ship they are on explodes. They are washed ashore with a crewman named Paddy who soon winds up drunk and in the water. In other words; he dies. This leaves the two youngsters, Emmeline and Richard, to fend for themselves, and they do this for years. The movie follows them growing older and as they age they start to notice one another and soon the film becomes nothing more than a perverse look at two kids falling in love.
The film is not helped by the two young actor's lack of talent. I won't say that Shields hasn't developed some acting skill but here neither actor can make the material palatable. Each of them can't seem to get a handle on their characters and maybe this is due to the fact that the script paints them as helplessly ignorant and ridiculously childish.
Sure, they have been separated from the world since they were young (not `that' young though), but are we really expected to believe that they don't know what a skull is or that they have never seen a pregnant woman before?
The film comes off rather tasteless as apposed to being a character study. In a way this reminds me of `Showgirls', which was another one of those films that the director rallied behind trying to make it seem as if it was much more than simple trash. This is not a smart movie, nor is it an effective film. Director Richard Kleiser and writer Douglas Day Stewart should have intentionally strayed away from the obvious in order to build an air of longing the viewer. If they had focused on the mental state of these two characters instead of their physical appearance then maybe this film would have morphed into something interesting and intelligent.
The end of the film (which in itself is also a stretch) is tender in its own right and actually touched me a little, but to be honest it was not enough to warrant any respect. As we watch these two characters make their way through life we don't feel as much for them as we do for the poor actors who portray them, for no actor should have to list this film of their résumé. September 16, 2008
| Calvin Klein Jeans |
In 1980, when this film was released, there was quite a bit of controversy, most of it ill-founded. There were complaints about incest, but the two children are not brother and sister: Emmeline clearly addresses Arthur Lestrange as Uncle, while Richard calls him Father, so the closest they could be is cousins, and the use of Uncle may have been conventional (indicating guardianship) rather than literal. There were complaints about showing a 14-year-old actress nude, but they used body doubles for all of the nude scenes (Brooke Shields spends some of the commentary pointing which body double was used for which scene).
The plot is fairly straightforward. A man, Arthur Lestrange (William Daniels), is taking two children, Emmeline (Elva Josephson) and Richard (Glenn Kohan), from Boston to San Francisco by sailing ship around the turn of the century (the date is not specified). Because the Panama Canal doesn't exist yet, they must travel right down to the bottom of South America to get around. After rounding the bottom, there's a fire aboard - something that is a serious concern, but in this case it is worse, because it is in a hold containing blasting powder, so the passengers are rowed away from the ship. In the confusion, the children are separated from Arthur Lestrange; they end up in a boat with Paddy, the ship's cook (Leo McKern). To make things worse, a heavy fog rolls in, the ship blows up, and they are adrift by themselves.
Luck (and the scriptwriter) is with them, and they awaken within sight of an island. They are very fortunate to discover that this island has fresh water, ample fruit (bananas, papayas, and coconuts, amongst others), and is generally a tropical paradise. Paddy shows them various useful skills, including the construction of a hut, and collection of food, before dying. Now two fairly young children (I'm guessing they are under ten years) are alone. Years pass, and Richard (now Christopher Atkins) and Emmeline (now Brooke Shields) are coping fairly well with the basics of feeding themselves, but they are going through a variety of traumas as their bodies change. Matters like Emmeline's first period are not glossed over - it's easy to see how terrifying that could be for a young girl with no idea of what is happening to her. Emotionally, the pair are still children, and they squabble and tease one another just as children do. There are a series of events (nope, I'm not saying what) that split them apart, then bring them back together. Yes, they do learn about sex, and that is also handled sensitively - it could have come across as pornographic, but it doesn't, it comes across as tender and caring. The consequences are handled well, too. Bear in mind that these children, back on the ship, were still at the "cabbage patch" stage of sex education...
Providing you have a broad enough mind not to be scandalized by the nudity (which is utterly appropriate to the setting), this is a sweet love story set in a tropical paradise, a study of innocence, with enough drama to add seasoning.
Recommended For fans OF Brooke Shields(of Calvin Klein blue jeans fame) and love stories.
Gunner January, 2008
January 30, 2008
| Amazing Product |
Amazon gives me the best quality product for the DVD i had ordered. January 20, 2008
| What about Chris |
What about Chris? That's why I originally saw this movie and enjoyed watching. Very few films show male frontal nudity and it got more sterile as the years have gone on. Treated as complete taboo.
Maybe I'm alone in this?
Cheers to Chris! He fueled many a fantasy for me and was sorry his career didn't take off. January 12, 2008
More reviews at Amazon.com ...




