Into the Blue 2: The Reef (2009)

Oh my goodness, where do I start? I remember hearing about this movie back in 2009 when I saw it on a shelf at Target back then. I remember being curious about it because I kind of enjoyed the first movie but in some ways, I was a little iffy about it. I remember wanting to watch it but I didn't buy it until October of last year but I didn't actually watch it until a few weeks ago, and man, I really wish that I didn't.I am going to say this: I have SOMEWHAT of a thing for unrelated direct-to-video sequels. I know that a lot of them turn out not to be so good. Some are watchable. Some just happen to have the name slapped on it and it's the same thing but it turns out to be really bad. Few are actually good, and this is not one of those movies. It was really bad.Now I am not going to deny that the movie has a lot of eye candy. It had some great visuals of Hawaii, great underwater sequences and of course, great looking women. Laura Vandervoort, Mircea Monroe, Marsha Thomason, Audrina Patridge, even some of the other female characters who we didn't get to know were all smoking hot. However, that's as far as I can go when it comes to the positives. Now on to the negatives.The plot is almost a replica of the first film, yet there were some differences. The other couple in this one were more like a comic relief couple and didn't get them into the trouble that the couple in the first one did. Plus, it felt kind of predictable who the villains were. Right at the beginning, I kind of sensed that the British people were going to be revealed as the villains more than halfway through the movie but I saw it coming from a mile away. Second, what was the point in the little anti-war subtext that came out of left field? I understand that they tried to differ from the first one being the "illegal treasure" that is found at the bottom of the ocean was a nuclear weapon as opposed to drugs, but why bomb Hawaii? Also, another thing that I thought that was badly done was when they killed off Mircea Monroe's character. I get that in a lot of movies, there has to be at least one casualty in the protagonist group, but I really didn't think that her character needed to be iced unless the writers wanted it to resemble the first film. But in the first film, the reason the other girl died was because she got bit by a shark but she was somewhat of an antagonist anyway. This movie, on the other hand, didn't have a reason to kill her off and then later on, have a little funeral for her and then it was like it didn't happen. The actor could have shown that he was more broken up about his girlfriend's death than he actually did.There are some more negative things that I could point out. One, the henchman who can't swim. I kind of chuckled when I saw that part when he was drowning at sea. Also, the mini subplot with Audrina Patridge's character coming up and talking all fast was really pointless and her boyfriend wasn't even a major character in the movie. Also, Laura's character making a fast recovery from hypothermia. Okay, I can let that one slide because it was a plot device and she had to go back to her boyfriend and friends eventually. But wait, this was a major goof if I ever saw one and I am sure I am not the only one who saw this: after she ran into a cop and her boyfriend's rival, they take the guy's boat to go find her boyfriend and friend. But that's not the bad part, the bad part is that we last saw her wearing a hospital gown but when we saw her meet up with her friends, we see her wearing a different shirt and you see the bikini string coming out of the shirt collar. Okay, for one thing, she wouldn't had enough time to go and change her shirt because she had to meet her friends to help them. Even she did have enough time, the best thing she could do is just get a shirt, not a bikini top along with it. I thought that was a major error when I saw it.I could really go on about how bad this movie is. The first movie wasn't special either, but I found it entertaining in some areas. This movie, on the hand, had so many errors and it suffered from bad writing and bad directing. Some of the acting was decent, particularly from the villains, but other than that, it was a bad movie. Don't ever waste your time watching this movie.

Brainless film about a good looking but brainless couple who decide to live their dream and take people on diving tours. The pair almost instantly make the wrong choice of customers and get mixed up with some people seeking to recover the items that we see falling to the ocean floor during the opening credits sequence. Great looking direct to video movie could have been so much better if it wasn't so interested in primarily looking good. Performances are serviceable and the plot is actually not bad, or would have been had the director and producers not redirected the plot into making sure we see lots of shapely people in bathing suits (or in what I'm guessing the reason for the "unrated" moniker a few fleeting bare breasts). The film never generates any tension nor rises above the level of a forgettable TV movie. If you get roped in to seeing this you won't pluck your eyes out since the eye candy is pleasant but we really need to stop producers from making films that are excuses to have a paid vacation.

while generally i find it a turn off when seeing 100% "preaty people as utterly unrealistic(this coming from a blonde one myself), for this particular feature it is bearable since it is an exotic adventure movie to start with = all comes down to exercising the imagination.but the main aspect i truly enjoyed was the music score; great combination of uplifting sounds compounding many musical genres. this is a good movie to watch while preparing to leave for vacation...yes, very commercial at times but the feature does not pretend be more then what it is; a light pure entertaining plot(does not take itself too serious but good enough script to keep viewer in suspense)and full of visually rich cinematography(humans and nature).if you liked "into the blue 1"-2005 and/or feel in an adventurous mood, then this one is for you.quiet a few scenes are literal rip-offs from the first one. my favorite actress was Marsha Thomason, great touch in moving plot forward . also the ending is not very predictable overall.

This film has x in it. x stands for a peak-of-irrelevance-person, whose irrelevance i will not undermine by memorizing her name and positively shall not be mistaken for an actress.x is part of a plague that infected television and made real what we would have thought ten years ago is a sick joke: people who have no life watch people having no life.Speaking of sick joke - whose idea was it to hire x as ... no, i correct: INSTEAD of an actress for this movie? Anyhofromthehills, this film has x in it and you just know that is it's terminal flaw. By far not it's only flaw but it's most obvious. Which is - come to think of it - a good thing as it makes you run to the hills and hide from it.