The movie is really sweet. Bad reviews are from small minded conservatives because of the nudity, incest, and underage brooke shields.The movie is about 2 young children grow up on an island they were stranded on. They have no one to teach them. So they end up ignorant and immature. They do not understand their feelings or whats happening to their bodies.

not more. only an escape from every day universe far away. beautiful location. seductive scenes of grow up. beautiful young people, tension, reinvent of the history of humanity, romanticism, adventure, flavor of the pages of Jules Verne and dreams with open eyes of the first ages. few drops of controversies. and a decent/predictable script. not more. not new. but useful for special days and evenings and afternoon. first I saw it in 1987. under the Communist regime. on the video player. and I was fascinated. it was more than a movie - it was magic. after few decades, it seems to me be far to be remarkable. or good film. or credible. but, for the emotion of a young man at 11 years who was me in 1987, I admit - The Blue Lagoon is a must see. once in life. at the best age.

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.

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.