Evolution-X 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.

MBunge Oh boy, this is the sort of film that makes you feel sorry for Hollywood screenwriters. I mean, everybody's got to pay bills, so you figure you'll take a job writing the direct-to-DVD sequel of Jessica Alba movie. How bad can it be? And then your producer says you've got to write a part for an MTV reality star, create an entire second set of characters because the leading lady won't take her top off, inject an Iraq/Afghanistan war theme into the movie because somebody wants to pretend they're relevant and to top it off, you've got to jerry rig an ending out of spit and bailing wire when the production runs out of money. No wonder writers drink…and so many of them commit suicide.Sebastian and Dani (Chris Carmack and Laura Vandervoort) are a young, impossibly good looking pair of lovers who run a diving business in Hawaii. They've spent years looking for a famed shipwreck, with only a single doubloon to show for it. Then one day, they're hired by an international couple who say they're looking for the same ship wreck. Carlton and Azra (David Anders and Marsha Thomason) are wealthy and mysterious and turn out to have a hidden agenda. And then they have another agenda hidden under that which gets explained in a scene that is literally jaw droppingly stupid.In the midst of all that, a few girls show their breasts, there's some nicely filmed underwater scenes and the movie rolls out a total of 8 montages to kill time. Yes, I said 8 montages. The rule in cinema is generally that more than 2 montages means your film sucks, but 8 takes it to a completely different level. 8 montages moves beyond considerations of good and bad and almost turns this motion picture into a force of nature, like an earthquake or Galactus.Now, this is a talented enough cast, director Stephen Herek looks like he knows what he's doing and the dialog isn't atrocious, but this script is dragged to the bottom of the sea by way too many creative requirements. Here's the most obvious one. The folks who made Into The Blue 2: The Reef wanted there to be nudity, and naked breasts do show up at regular intervals. Usually the lead actress is a big part of that, but these guys gave that part to Laura Vandervoort, who refused to get nude. She's beautiful and a decent actress and all that, but not being willing to take your clothes off should be a deal breaker for this kind of role. So, writer Mitchell Kapner was tasked with inserting a secondary female character into the story to do the nudity that Vandervoort wouldn't, which also required the insertion of a secondary male character so she'd have someone to do a sex scene with.To his credit, Kapner tries to give those secondary characters their own storyline but it detracts from both the two leads and the villainous couple they face off with. It's this obtrusive third wheel that boggles up the plot, takes away characterization time from the stars of the show and it's blazingly obvious that it's only in the film because Vandervoort wouldn't show her glorious ta-ta's.The screenplay is burdened with too many other things like that, from two painfully bad scenes with Audrina Patridge from MTV's The Hills to a treasure hunting movie ludicrously morphing into an espionage flick with an anti-war message to an ending so cheaply pulled off it can't possibly have been the original idea. This production spent a good chunk of money shooting a lot of expensive underwater footage and then it's big, explosive conclusion is almost Ed Woodian in its staging and execution.I haven't seen Into The Blue, though I'm fairly certain Jessica Alba doesn't take her clothes off in it. Maybe if she had, these producers would have felt compelled to get an actress who would do the same, which would probably have made Into The Blue 2: The Reef significantly better. She didn't, so they didn't, so it's not.

Argemaluco In 2005,George W. Bush started with his second period as a President of the United States; North Korea announced its possession of nuclear weapons; Pope John Paul II died after a long illness; and a movie called Into the Blue appeared.The existence of this movie is not as bad as the other things that happened on that year,but the film itself was execrable.Now,in 2009,the United States have another President,there is another Pope,new Korean nuclear weapons...and the film Into the Blue 2: The Reef,which is better than the original one...but that's the same as saying: "getting your fingers cut is better than getting your head cut".This sequel is a really bad film which kept me tremendously bored and uninterested.The cast of Into the Blue 2: The Reef is composed by TV-series actors who completely lack of any credibility and dramatic weight,but who are perfect for showing their bodies.Chris Carmack (The O.C.),David Anders (Heroes and Alias),Laura Vandervoort (Smallville),Marsha Tomason (Lost) and Audrina Patridge (The Hills) bring hollow and boring performances.I liked some previous movies from director Stephen Herek (Critters and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure specially) but on this movie,he cannot generate even the minimum level of tension,emotion or entertainment.The characters from this movie are not only badly performed,but they are also repulsive.Honestly,I wanted all of them to die.The cinematography from this movie is also lame and it seems to have been made by a technical team who makes promotional videos for Hawaiian hotels.Into the Blue 2: The Reef is a horrible movie which is better than the original film,but that's the same as nothing,as I previously said.Avoid this crappy film at all costs.

coffeeblack i thought i would give this movie a chance because i must admit i really enjoyed the first. i went in with my expectations low and after the viewing i must admit i was'nt sorry. this movie is just OK. into the blue 1 was pretty good so a sequel was hard to do. the story was fine if not a little outdated and the acting was fine apart from a few silly actors letting the side down.as u can probably tell there is not a lot to write about this apart from that if you enjoyed the first 1 then you will probably enjoy this as well...just not as much.give it a try and let me know if my rating of fair or unfair;)