Connect with us

Movie Reviews

‘Greenland 2: Migration’ movie review: Gerard Butler does all the heavy lifting in limp sequel

Published

on

‘Greenland 2: Migration’ movie review: Gerard Butler does all the heavy lifting in limp sequel

A still from ‘Greenland 2: Migration’.
| Photo Credit: Lionsgate Movies/YouTube

Watching Greenland 2: Migration, one almost feels as though one is in a time capsule watching all those big disaster movies from the ‘90s, in single-screen theatres that looked like palaces with velvet curtains and chandeliers.

It was the time of slides saying “chatterboxes keep quiet,” and where popcorn, cheese sandwiches or curry puffs came hot in aluminium trays at the interval.

Greenland 2: Migration (English)

Director: Ric Roman Waugh

Starring: Gerard Butler, Morena Baccarin, Roman Griffin Davis

Advertisement

Runtime: 98 minutes

Storyline: Five years after the comet strikes Earth, the bunker is no longer safe, and the Garritys strike out for the crater, where life has apparently hit the reset button

It was the time of radioactive lizards with eyes as big as Gol Gumbaz, hurtling comets, rising seas and an alien susceptible to a cold. But once you realise it is 30 years on in a world that has lost its innocence to a rapacious virus, you are less willing to grant as much leeway to a lazily made sequel.

Greenland in 2020 was a critical and commercial success with Gerard Butler playing the world-weary action hero‑family man‑tech expert, John Garrity. A comet named Clarke (after the science fiction writer Arthur C Clarke) was scheduled to hit the Earth and end life as we know it.

At the end of the movie, after many trials, John, with his wife, Allison (Morena Baccarin) and insulin-dependent son Nathan (Roman Griffin Davis takes over from Roger Dale Floyd) reach a bunker in Greenland just as a large chunk of the comet hits the earth.

Five years later, the earth is still not a particularly safe space with earthquakes, radiation, tsunamis and other jolly things blighting existence. John is now a scout, while also attending to repairs in the bunkers, owing to his training as a structural engineer. At a meeting, there is discussion of food supplies running low and a decision to be taken on whether to respond to a call for help.

Advertisement

While the mean army man reasonably says they cannot feed anyone more, Dr. Amina (Amber Rose Revah) asks for the matter to be put to vote and when the snowcat is sent out to get the refugees, an earthquake destroys the bunker.

Garrity and others head to the coast, fight over lifeboats, drift without food, water or fuel to England and then go on to France where the Clarke crater is a new Eden where the air is fresh and land is fertile.

ALSO READ: ‘People We Meet on Vacation’ film review: Tom Blyth and Emily Bader’s sweet rom com checks all the right boxes

Greenland 2: Migration suffers from a woeful lack of logic, even of the film kind. How is it that everyone looks well fed and groomed even as we are repeatedly told they are running out of food? How are there still bullets given the way people are shooting at each other? How are vehicles still running on fuel?

Why are robbers or insurgents fighting in an area controlled by the army? And of course, the bridge across the English channel, which is now a dry wasteland, has to collapse exactly at the moment when our heroic gang is creeping across.

Advertisement

Every time there is a crisis, it is as if the makers got bored and decided to move on. So despite running out of fuel, the lifeboat drifts to Liverpool, and Nate’s diabetes is reduced to “pack all the insulin.” Still it is fun to see the ever-dependable Butler do his melancholic routine and that is about all one can say for the haphazardly conceived sequel.

Greenland 2: Migration is currently running in theatres

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Dan Webster reviews “WTO/99”

Published

on

Dan Webster reviews “WTO/99”

DAN WEBSTER:

It may now seem like ancient history, especially to younger listeners, but it was only 26 years ago when the streets of Seattle were filled with protesters, police and—ultimately—scenes of what ended up looking like pure chaos.

It is those scenes—put together to form a portrait of what would become known as the “Battle of Seattle” —that documentary filmmaker Ian Bell captures in his powerful documentary feature WTO/99.

We’ve seen any number of documentaries over the decades that report on every kind of social and cultural event from rock concerts to war. And the majority of them follow a typical format: archival footage blended with interviews, both with participants and with experts who provide an informational, often intellectual, perspective.

WTO/99 is something different. Like The Perfect Neighbor, a 2026 Oscar-nominated documentary feature, Bell’s film consists of what could be called found footage. What he has done is amass a series of news reports and personal video recordings into an hour-and-42-minute collection of individual scenes, mostly focused on a several-block area of downtown Seattle.

Advertisement

That is where a meeting of the WTO, the World Trade Organization, was set to be held between Nov. 30 and Dec. 3, 1999. Delegates from around the world planned to negotiate trade agreements (what else?) at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center.

Months before the meeting, however, a loose coalition of groups—including NGOs, labor unions, student organizations and various others—began their own series of meetings. Their objective was to form ways to protest not just the WTO but, to some of them, the whole idea of a world order they saw as a threat to the economic independence of individual countries.

Bell’s film doesn’t provide much context for all this. What we mostly see are individuals arguing their points of view as they prepare to stop the delegates from even entering the convention center. Meanwhile, Seattle authorities such as then-Mayor Paul Schell and then-Police Chief Norm Stamper—with brief appearances by Gov. Gary Locke and King County Executive Ron Sims—discuss counter measures, with Schell eventually imposing a curfew.

That decision comes, though, after what Bell’s film shows is a peaceful protest evolving into a street fight between people parading and chanting, others chained together and splinter groups intent on smashing the storefronts of businesses owned by what they see as corporate criminals. One intense scene involves a young woman begging those breaking windows to stop and asking them why they’re resorting to violence. In response a lone voice yells their reasoning: “Self-defense.”

Even more intense, though, are the actions of the Seattle police. We see officers using pepper spray, tear gas, flash grenades and other “non-lethal” means such as firing rubber pellets into the crowd. In one scene, a uniformed guy—not identified as a police officer but definitely part of the security crowd, which included National Guardsmen—is shown kicking a guy in the crotch.

Advertisement

The media, too, can’t avoid criticism. Though we see broadcast reporters trying to capture what was happening—with some affected like everybody else by the tear gas that filled the streets like a winter fog—the reports they air seem sketchy, as if they’re doctors trying to diagnose a serious illness by focusing on individual cells. And the images they capture tend to highlight the violence over the well-meaning actions of the vast majority of protesters.

Reactions to what Bell has put on the screen are bound to vary, based on each viewer’s personal politics. Bell revels his own stance by choosing selectively from among thousands of hours of video coverage to form the narrative he feels best captures what happened those two decades-and-change ago.

If nothing else, WTO/99 does reveal a more comprehensive picture of what happened than we got at the time. And, too, it should prepare us for the future. The way this country is going, we’re bound to see a lot more of the same.

Call it the “Battle for America.”

For Spokane Public Radio, I’m Dan Webster.

Advertisement

——

Movies 101 host Dan Webster is the senior film critic for Spokane Public Radio.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: ‘Scream 7’ – Catholic Review

Published

on

Movie Review: ‘Scream 7’ – Catholic Review

NEW YORK (OSV News) – As its title suggests, “Scream 7” (Paramount) is the latest extension of a long-lived horror franchise, one that’s currently approaching its 30th anniversary on screen. Since each chapter of this slasher saga has been a bloodsoaked mess, the series’ longevity will strike moviegoers of sense as inexplicable.

Yet the slog continues. While the previous film in the sequence shifted the action from California to New York, this second installment, following a 2022 quasi-reboot, settles on a Midwestern locale and reintroduces us to the series’ original protagonist, Sidney Evans, nee Prescott (Neve Campbell).

Having aged out of the adolescent demographic on whom the various murderers who have donned the Ghostface mask that serves as these films’ dubious trademark over the years seem to prefer to prey, Sidney comes equipped with a teen daughter, Tatum (Isabel May). Will Tatum prove as resourceful in evading the unwanted attentions of Ghostface as Mom has?

On the way to answering that question, a clutch of colorless minor characters fall victim to the killer, who sometimes gets — according to his or her lights — creative. Thus one is quite literally made to spill her guts, while another ends up skewered on a barroom’s pointy beer tap.

Through it all, director Kevin Williamson and his co-writer Guy Busick try to peddle a theme of female empowerment in the face of mortal danger. They also take a stab, as it were, at constructing a plotline about intergenerational family tensions. When not jarring viewers with grisly images, however, they’re only likely to lull them into a stupor.

Advertisement

The film contains excessive gory violence, including disembowelment and impaling, underage drinking, mature topics, a couple of profanities, several milder oaths, pervasive rough and considerable crude language and occasional crass expressions. The OSV News classification is O — morally offensive. The Motion Picture Association rating is R — restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.

Read More Movie & TV Reviews

Copyright © 2026 OSV News

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: “THE BRIDE!” – Assignment X

Published

on

Movie Review: “THE BRIDE!” – Assignment X


By ABBIE BERNSTEIN / Staff Writer


Posted: March 8th, 2026 / 08:00 PM

THE BRIDE movie poster | ©2026 Warner Bros.

Rating: R
Stars: Jessie Buckley, Christian Bale, Annette Bening, Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, Penelope Cruz, Jeannie Berlin, Zlatko Burić
Writer: Maggie Gyllenhaal, based on characters created by Mary Shelley and William Hurlbut and John Balderston
Director: Maggie Gyllenhaal
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Release Date: March 6, 2026

“THE BRIDE!” (as with the recent “WUTHERING HEIGHTS, the quotation marks are part of the title) is awash in homages, and not just the ones we might reasonably expect in a movie that takes its most obvious inspiration from 1935’s BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

Advertisement

There’s that, of course, plus its source, Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel FRANKENSTEIN; OR THE MODERN PROMETHEUS, and its sober 1931 film adaptation FRANKENSTEIN. But there are also big nods to wilder takes on the legend, including YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN and THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW and even movies that have nothing to do with FRANKENSTEIN, like BONNIE AND CLYDE.

Writer/director Maggie Gyllenhaal casts a wide net in metaphors and ideas and looks. Sometimes “THE BRIDE!” is a comedy, sometimes it’s a crime drama, sometimes it’s a love story, occasionally, it’s even a musical.

Mary Shelley (Jessie Buckley) narrates the tale to us from beyond the grave. She is haughty and naughty, intoxicated by verbiage and her own literary genius. She is going to tell us a story, she says, that she didn’t even dare imagine while alive.

We’re in 1930s Chicago, where a young escort (also Buckley) is having a really awful evening out at a fancy restaurant with some of her peers and a bunch of crass gangsters. Shelley dubs the woman “Ida” and takes possession of her, causing her to speak and act in ways that get her escorted outside. There she stumbles and takes a fatal fall.

The two goons who were with Ida are happy to describe her tumble as the result of their intentional actions to their horrible gangster boss (Zlatko Burić). Ida was suspected of talking to the cops.

Advertisement

Around the same time, Frankenstein’s creation (Christian Bale) – let’s just call him “Frank,” like everybody else does – comes to Chicago to seek out the groundbreaking scientist Dr. Euphronious (Annette Bening), whose published works he has read.

Frank wants the doctor to create a companion for him. His appearance is unusual, but the most alarming injuries are covered by clothing, so he’s not as extreme-looking as, say, Boris Karloff in the role. This isn’t about sex, Frank explains when Euphronious asks why he doesn’t just hire a prostitute. After over a century of loneliness, he seeks a soulmate, and he is sure this can only be achieved by reviving a corpse.

So, Euphronious and Frank dig up the grave that turns out to belong to Ida (we never do learn how they know it belongs to a soulmate candidate as opposed to a shot-and-dumped male gangster). Euphronius revives her. Ida remembers how to walk and talk, but not who she is or what happened, so Frank and the doc tell her she’s been in an accident.

Even without Ida’s beauty, Frank is already devoted to the very notion of her. A more accommodating suitor would be hard to find. Frank has another passion, the musical films of Ronnie Reed (Jake Gyllenhaal, the filmmaker’s brother), a Fred Astaire-like star. Frank imagines himself in the midst of those dance routines, and we get some more within “THE BRIDE!”’s “real” action.

One thing leads to another, Frank and Ida go on the run, leaving a trail of bodies in their wake. They are pursued all over the country. Among those seeking them are sad-eyed police detective Jake Wiles (Peter Sarsgaard) and his secretary Myrna Mallow (Penélope Cruz), who’s better at this whole crime-solving business than he is.

Advertisement

It’s all very kaleidoscopic and energetic, occasionally impressive and sometimes very funny. Bening as the frazzled, worldly Euphronious has some great moments. Buckley, currently and justifiably Oscar-nominated leading performance in HAMNET, juggles the very unalike personas of Mary and Ida with impact.

Oddly, Bale underplays Frank. We get that he is trying his hardest not to spook Ida (or anyone else), but it seems like he should have a bit more spark. Cruz, going for a snappy ‘30s working woman, has her own style that works.

But in addition to being entertaining and eye-catching, Gyllenhaal has a message that gets very muddled. This is less because it’s so familiar by now that it feels a little redundant, and more because a crucial part of the set-up collides head-on with the feminist slant.

Ida seeks to be her own person, but she is literally bodily controlled by Mary Shelley, who puts her creation in danger with her outbursts. This may help get Ida out of the clutches of the mob, but it is possession, the aftereffects of which the character understandably finds confusing and upsetting.

If Gyllenhaal wanted to discuss or dramatize the clash between what Mary, as a woman, is doing to this other woman, that would make sense, but it seems we’re just meant to somehow overlook this while being immersed in how men control women. The resulting cognitive dissonance adds another layer to a movie that already has more than it can comfortably service.

Advertisement

Additionally, when Mary has one of her outbursts while inhabiting Ida, the plot comes to a screeching halt until she’s finished. Many viewers will wish Mary would stop declaiming and just let Ida be herself.

“THE BRIDE!” succeeds in being trippy and some of it is memorable. By the end, though, it is more disjointed than even a movie about experiments and a character made up of multiple people’s body parts ought to be.

Related: Movie  Review: NFT: CURSED IMAGESRelated: Movie  Review: SCREAM 7
Related: Movie  Review: OPERATION TACO GARY’S
Related: Movie  Review: ANACORETA
Related: Movie  Review: THIS IS NOT A TEST
Related: Movie  Review: GHOST TRAIN
Related: Movie  Review: COLD STORAGE
Related: Movie  Review: THE HAUNTED FOREST
Related: Movie  Review: “WUTHERING HEIGHTS” 
Related: Movie  Review: THE MORTUARY ASSISTANT
Related: Movie  Review: THE STRANGERS: CHAPTER 3
Related: Movie  Review: PILLION
Related: Movie  Review: JIMPA
Related: Movie  Review: ISLANDS
Related: Movie  Review: WORLDBREAKER
Related: Movie  Review: MOTHER OF FLIES
Related: Movie  Review: 28 YEARS LATER: THE BONE TEMPLE
Related: Movie  Review: NIGHT PATROL
Related: Movie  Review: THE CONFESSION (2026)
Related: Movie  Review: WE BURY THE DEAD
Related: Movie  Review: ANACONDA
Related: Movie  Review: AVATAR: FIRE AND  ICE
Related: Movie  Review: IS THIS THING ON?
Related: Movie  Review: MANOR OF DARKNESS
Related: Movie  Review: DUST BUNNY

Follow us on Twitter at ASSIGNMENT X
Like us on Facebook at ASSIGNMENT X

Article Source: Assignment X
Article: Movie  Review: “THE BRIDE!”

Advertisement

Related Posts:

Continue Reading

Trending