Into the Blue 2: The Reef Reviews

Page 1 of 56
Super Reviewer
January 13, 2010
This is literally in the top 5 of the worst movies I have ever seen! truely Dreadful!
jjnxn jjnxn
Super Reviewer
½ May 13, 2009
Insipid junk
John2223 John2223
Super Reviewer
February 26, 2011
¨Into the Blue 2: The Reef¨ is as the first movie plenty of excellent scenery. The the acting is plain as in the original, but it is an entertaining movie like the first movie.
Matthew L
Super Reviewer
August 25, 2009
Not sure I want to admit I watched this but I did. Horrible movie with a terrible plot and the worst acting I have seen in a long time. Whoever these two nobody actors are, they should stick to TV. And blowing up Pearl Harbor? Why?
Kym (c my community profile)
Super Reviewer
May 30, 2011
Usual Predictable fodder. Why is it any movie having to do with divers, a boat, & something the 'good guys' are looking for ends up to be some trap with fakes that are looking for a nuke (or something illegal) so now them & friends are threatened good guys turn around kick-ass & then there's still after story (like 3-6 months later...they get a new boat or find that treasure they're looking for. Chris Carmack (plays Sebastian) reminds me of Casper Van Dien (when he was younger) Laura Vandervoort plays his girlfriend Dani While Audrina partridge (UGH!) shows her face a couple times playing Avery's GF. (Thak goodness it's a bit part she has no real acting skills as far as I see in this) Oh & my surprise ... & with an English Accent no less...that for a 2nd didn't think it was him... Johnathan Gilbert himself!! David Anders plays big surprise the baddie Carlton. The only part of this movie I give an A or a B to is the beautiful blue water & under water shots. Otehrwise.. I'd have had more fun watching my Surf Movies & Documentaries. Too Predictable D
Mike D ½ June 25, 2010
Laura Vandervoort may not win any Oscars but she is fine as hell. I'd take her over Jessica Alba anyday. Been awhile since I saw the first Into the Blue, but I don't remember it being any better than this sequel. I'd imagine this would look great on Blu-ray. And Audrina's 90 seconds of screen time seemed so awkward and out of place.
CandyFlavoredCars CandyFlavoredCars June 10, 2009
I actually rlly liked this movie!! Not as good as the first but it is still an engaging story and not bad acting!!
Waze B May 18, 2012
Absolute waste of time.. Avoid..
Marter Marter February 14, 2012
At one point of Into the Blue 2: The Reef, I thought it was going to be a commentary about how humans are destroying the oceans. In the first Into the Blue, the water was populated with all sorts of creatures, and the highlights of the film were the shots underwater. In this film, the ocean is such a drab and boring place, populated by the characters diving into it, and the shadow of a shark or fish every now and then.

It turns out that this isn't the case, and instead, the oceans aren't populated for another reason. What that reason is never gets explained. Maybe it's because people are dramatically impacting the fish population. Maybe the director, Stephen Herek, decided to try to film without much wildlife so that we'd get to see the actors more. For whatever reason, the fish that were so much fun to spend time with from the first film are gone in its sequel. Actually, calling it a sequel is deceptive, because apart from the basic idea of "diving to find treasure," nothing returns from the first Into the Blue. The locale is different, the actors didn't return, and the plot contains no elements or references from earlier.

In fact, I'm not sure why this film is called a sequel. If it was to make money, well, just look at the box office receipts from the first film. It didn't make a lot of money, and releasing this one directly to home video with no advertisement probably won't make much either. I suppose giving it some sort of name recognition might help, and calling it a sequel might make completionists feel compelled to watch it (this would be why I am), but for the general public, I don't quite understand the strategy here.

The plot: There is another couple, slightly resembling the main couple from the last film. Their names are Sebastian (Chris Carmack) and Dani (Laura Vandervoot). They're approached one day by two tourists, Carlton (David Anders) and Azra (Marsha Thomason). It's time to look for treasure, as our leads are hired for a week of diving, hoping to find the lost ship of the San Caristobal. We even get some exposition telling us the legend of this ship, because apparently that matters somehow. I understood why that happened in the last film, because the legend, which involved a tale of love vs. greed, was one of the central themes. This time, it's a story for the sake of eating up time.

That's fine, because it's sometimes nice to know what we're going after and why it's important. However, the plot gets switched around when we learn that Carlton and Azra aren't actually looking for this ship, and are instead looking for cargo which we learn was thrown overboard prior to us joining the story. We learned about the cargo in our first scene, which established villains, but Carlton and Azra seem trustworthy enough, and since they weren't in the opening scene, they must be looking for the cargo to keep it away from the bad guys, right?

You get no prizes for guessing how the plot will pan out. If this was any less surprising, I might have been shocked at the sheer audacity of the filmmakers for playing it as safe as they did. But instead, we get a cookie-cutter plot that functions but is nothing special. There are twists, and if you don't watch a lot of movies, you'll be surprised. If you do, there will be one moment that will probably be unforeseen. It involves a certain character being killed off, although since that character wasn't particularly important, it's hard to care.

What might astonish you is that there's also a subplot included in Into the Blue 2. It involves Sebatian and Dani's friends, Mace (Michael Graziadei) and Kimi (Mircea Monroe). They fight a bunch; Mace always seems to be "misunderstood" but Kimi, which usually leads to these fights. So they fight, break up, reconcile, and get back together only to repeat the cycle. Wait, I said this was a subplot. My mistake. It doesn't go anywhere and ends up wasting our time. Just like I did while describing it. Does that feel good? No? Well that's what seeing this part of the film feels like.

The conflict between the main characters is gone as well. One of the bright spots of Into the Blue was how the characters would debate amongst themselves before choosing a course of action. Here, there's no discourse; one character will say what's going to happen, and then that's what everyone does. Even if you don't have well-developed characters, having this kind of dialogue gives off that illusion. Into the Blue 2 makes it apparent that there are no characters -- there are only vessels that look good in swimsuits.

I didn't have a lot of fun with Into the Blue 2: The Reef, even if it did accomplish its goal of getting attractive people into (and in this one, sometimes out of) their bathing suits. But the plot is routine, the characters have no depth, and even the once-plentiful fish have been taken away, making the ocean feel devoid of life. It also has a ton of unnecessary moments that do nothing but pad the runtime. The interesting conversations between the characters are also nonexistent, making you easily realize how lifeless these characters are. On the whole, it's not a film that you have any reason to watch.
Faroeislander Faroeislander September 4, 2010
the chicks are hot, the rest is not!!
richard c. richard c. ½ January 25, 2010
Considering it's a sequel to the guilty pleasure Into the Blue in name and plot only. The film offers some mildly amusing entertainment as another cast of hot bodies with less talent this time around fall into some trouble when they talk on some sexy new clients with a dark secret. Yada-yada-yada hidden treasure, nuclear weapons, sex, cheating, you get the picture. It could've been alot worse and to be honest there were moments when I found myself genuinely entertained plus the two leads don't do such a bad job of pulling off the cliched material.
jazza923 jazza923 April 19, 2009
Empty and mindless rubbish in a lame attempt to capitalize on a film that wasn't even that good to begin with. The acting isn't great, some decent photography and a dumb plot.
Page 1 of 56