Speaker 1: One man must travel with his wife and son across
Speaker 1: multiple international borders during natural disasters, social unrest, and armed
Speaker 1: conflict to ensure his family safety. Again, it's Greenland to Migration.
Speaker 1: I'm Ronald Young Junior, and I'm leaving the theater all right.
Speaker 1: This is Ronald and I am leaving the theater after
Speaker 1: seeing Greenland Migration. Greenland Migration written by Mitchell la Fortune
Speaker 1: and Chris Sparling, directed by Rick Roman Waugh, starring Gerard Butler,
Speaker 1: Morena Bakerin, and Roman Griffin Davis.
Speaker 2: As usual.
Speaker 1: For complete listing of the cast and crew, check out
Speaker 1: the link in our show notes. It is just me today.
Speaker 1: Greenland Migration is the sequel to Greenland, which I believe
Speaker 1: came out in either twenty twenty one or twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: It actually has a long fraught history. First it was
Speaker 1: supposed to be Neil blanc directing it with Chris Evans starring,
Speaker 1: and then Chris Evans and Blancamp left the project and
Speaker 1: they ended up with Gerard Butler and Rick Roman Wough.
Speaker 1: This movie is about a comment named Clark that is
Speaker 1: about to strike planet Earth and a man named John
Speaker 1: I forget his last name, who has to get his
Speaker 1: wife and child, Nathan, over to Greenland, where there are
Speaker 1: bunkers for them. He in particular was picked because he's
Speaker 1: a civil engineer and he has special expertise in terms
Speaker 1: of rebuilding the world in the future, so that's why
Speaker 1: he selected. The first one went to video on demand.
Speaker 1: This had a lot to do with the pandemic. Did
Speaker 1: well there, eventually was licensed to HBO, did well there.
Speaker 1: It was one of those films that did better in
Speaker 1: streaming than they could have anticipated. So they wanted to
Speaker 1: take that enthusiasm and make a sequel, and boy, oh boy,
Speaker 1: that was a terrible, terrible idea. This movie is not
Speaker 1: good at all. I don't even know. I don't even
Speaker 1: know where to start. At the end of Greenland, the original,
Speaker 1: it ends with them going to the bunker, and sometime later,
Speaker 1: maybe less than a year, maybe like nine months after
Speaker 1: they make it to the bunker, after doing all this work,
Speaker 1: people die. It's a very good movie. I actually really
Speaker 1: like Greenland the first one. They do all this work
Speaker 1: making it to the bunker. Some time passes while they're
Speaker 1: at the bunker, and at the end of the first movie,
Speaker 1: they open the bunker and there's this bright future ahead
Speaker 1: because there's birds chirping, and they realize that they're going
Speaker 1: to have to begin the hard work of rebuilding.
Speaker 2: Well, when the second.
Speaker 1: Movie opens, they just basically retcon what just happened and say, oh, no,
Speaker 1: we had to go back inside because it was too
Speaker 1: bad out there and the air quality was bad, so
Speaker 1: we stayed inside. And now now they are forced to
Speaker 1: leave the bunker and go to the site of the
Speaker 1: actual Creator's strike because for some reason, they're told that
Speaker 1: life is thriving there, there's water, the air is clean,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So they have to
Speaker 1: go on another journey from the bunker to a different
Speaker 1: place that is in the south of France.
Speaker 2: The premises garbage.
Speaker 1: It basically sets up the film so they could try
Speaker 1: to do the same thing they did in the first film,
Speaker 1: except in this one there's less character development. The first
Speaker 1: film is interesting because John is just moving back in
Speaker 1: with his wife because he cheated on her, and so
Speaker 1: this layer of tension that exists between them begins with
Speaker 1: them trying to repair their marriage, and because they're trying
Speaker 1: to repair their marriage, it adds it's just extra little
Speaker 1: cool bit of tension between them. It kind of is
Speaker 1: the epitome of this man trying to prove to his
Speaker 1: family that he will be the father and husband that
Speaker 1: they need. That's very good, that's a good character motivation.
Speaker 1: We immediately know who he is who she is in
Speaker 1: that their son has Type one diabetes. That immediately builds
Speaker 1: in an obstacle for them as they go on this journey,
Speaker 1: which becomes a part of the plot. Everything that they
Speaker 1: did right in the first film they did wrong in
Speaker 1: this one. It starts with them and the bunker. They
Speaker 1: are forced out of the bunker, and then they immediately
Speaker 1: go on a different journey. Every new character that is
Speaker 1: introduced except one is essentially killed or leaves everybody in there.
Speaker 1: They if they are with this family, they are there
Speaker 1: to be killed so that the family can keep going.
Speaker 1: And there's these false stakes added to the film. There's
Speaker 1: things that are completely inexplicable at some point and maybe
Speaker 1: also I need a refresher. I thought I had just
Speaker 1: recently saw The Last Greenland. The movie opens with John
Speaker 1: fully in a hazmat suit traversing the outside world picking
Speaker 1: up supplies, and I'm not sure why why he's qualified
Speaker 1: to do that? Would they not have a geologist or
Speaker 1: someone else that was out in the world, some sort
Speaker 1: of scientists out there, not a civil engineer, some sort
Speaker 1: of scientists, And I know you're thinking, well, maybe they're dead.
Speaker 1: Not according to who we're seeing pop up in the bunker.
Speaker 1: It seems like you're telling me everyone survived except for
Speaker 1: this civil engineer.
Speaker 2: And as a matter of fact, there's two civil engineers.
Speaker 2: So it seems.
Speaker 1: Unusual that John would be the one doing this, unless
Speaker 1: you just needed Gerard Butler to be doing this because
Speaker 1: he's leading the movie, which is a mistake. There's several
Speaker 1: times in the movie in which Gerard Butler's expertise in
Speaker 1: the movie would not put him in the position that
Speaker 1: he's in in the film. I'm saying that to say
Speaker 1: that is part of what you do in writing. You're saying,
Speaker 1: why would this person be here. We say they're here
Speaker 1: because they have expertise in so and so that's why
Speaker 1: you put them there, or they're thrust into that position.
Speaker 1: He is neither thrust and he does not have the expertise,
Speaker 1: so it makes no sense that he's leading them except
Speaker 1: that he's the lead of this film. His wife at
Speaker 1: one point is sitting at the council of what looks
Speaker 1: like elders and experts in the bunker town that they're
Speaker 1: in underground. Nothing is explained, nothing tells us why she's
Speaker 1: qualified to do that, none of that. The son is
Speaker 1: played by a different actor who is older, and now
Speaker 1: the son is fifteen. Zero character development. The diabetes never
Speaker 1: comes up again. They mentioned in the beginning bring your insulin.
Speaker 1: That's it. It is a big part of the first movie.
Speaker 1: It is not a big part of this movie at all.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, the biggest parts of this
Speaker 1: movie we get is the fact that he's a teenager
Speaker 1: and these discovering girls, which is fine as an underlying plot,
Speaker 1: but also a little bit problematic due to where the
Speaker 1: film actually ends up. At the end, there's a character
Speaker 1: who begins to die and tries to hide it from
Speaker 1: other folks, and in a way where because of the
Speaker 1: time limit remaining on their life, there was no way
Speaker 1: they could hit it any longer. And at one point
Speaker 1: I remember thinking, what so are y'all writing into the
Speaker 1: plot that they were just gonna die one day and
Speaker 1: weren't going to tell their family. It's very unusual. I
Speaker 1: don't like it. There's no real story. The story is
Speaker 1: that we gotta go over there. That's the story. The
Speaker 1: story is, hey, yeah, we gotta go over there. That's
Speaker 1: the story. That's not a story. And then everything that
Speaker 1: happens bad to them is only to thicken the plot,
Speaker 1: only to thicken the plot. So they're easily traversed obstacles
Speaker 1: that seem hard, that only to thicken the plot. At
Speaker 1: some point they have to walk through a war zone.
Speaker 1: We don't know why they're at war. We're just expected
Speaker 1: to suspend disbelief. No one even throws a line in
Speaker 1: there that's like France's really upset that England stole a
Speaker 1: bunch of resources or something like that. None of that happens.
Speaker 1: It's just there at war. This part, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of fighting going on.
Speaker 2: What is this? At some point they say, there's insurgents
Speaker 2: over here? What are they for? Every single obstacle that's in.
Speaker 1: This movie is meant to be moved so that they
Speaker 1: can get to where they're going. There's no character development.
Speaker 1: None of these characters are actually growing or changing, none
Speaker 1: of it. They're not actually that. Nothing happens to make
Speaker 1: them more or less than what they are. It's tough
Speaker 1: to watch because again. You start with this strong story
Speaker 1: in Greenland and add all these little bits of tension
Speaker 1: and these other characters, and it makes it very interesting.
Speaker 1: The father in law as a character. Andrew Batcheler King
Speaker 1: Batch from Social Media is in it. He has a
Speaker 1: very good role. It's a featured role and he's in
Speaker 1: it for a short while, but he's very good. There's
Speaker 1: just the first film is so good. Roy from Pam
Speaker 1: and Roy from the Office is in it. I'll never
Speaker 1: know that guy's name. He'll always be Roy to me.
Speaker 1: He's in the first one, has a very good role.
Speaker 1: There's just several times in the movie in which you
Speaker 1: could tell they are developing these characters. They are putting
Speaker 1: them in impossible situations and also pushing them forward, which
Speaker 1: is fine.
Speaker 2: That is something that you can do.
Speaker 1: But what's happening in this one is we have a
Speaker 1: fixed point and we got to get there, and we'll
Speaker 1: get there no matter what. We're not gonna we're in
Speaker 1: every obstacle that comes up. I mean, there's a bridge
Speaker 1: at one point, and I'm thinking, of course they're gonna
Speaker 1: cross the bridge, but it's gonna be harrowing. Oh no,
Speaker 1: you know it's not. They're not gonna lose anything crossing
Speaker 1: the bridge. They're gonna lose other actors, They're gonna lose
Speaker 1: background people and extras, but they're not gonna lose any
Speaker 1: of the main cast.
Speaker 2: So it's very tough.
Speaker 1: Even at some point when there is a sacrifice to
Speaker 1: be made in the film, it's made in a way
Speaker 1: that made me roll my eyes and get irritated more
Speaker 1: than it did make me feel anything. So it's just
Speaker 1: it's not good. There's not enough world building. I don't
Speaker 1: know what's happening in this world anymore. I knew what
Speaker 1: was happening in the first world. I knew the government
Speaker 1: was at the bare minimum trying to organize people and
Speaker 1: get them to places, so I knew that some semblance
Speaker 1: of the government existed. I would have liked to have
Speaker 1: seen that be more organized and more of those be
Speaker 1: prominent characters in the story. In this film, there's several
Speaker 1: times in which the characters are making bad decisions. They
Speaker 1: are attacked by people in the middle of nowhere, and
Speaker 1: they take time to bury one of their dead, which
Speaker 1: I just did not understand how they would have the
Speaker 1: time or the wherewithal to do that, except for something
Speaker 1: else that happens while they're burying the person that then
Speaker 1: comes up again later in the film, and it's only
Speaker 1: a line. It's not like sub something they have to
Speaker 1: face or anything. It's it's it wasn't good. I'm I'm
Speaker 1: a little irritated because I had other stuff to do,
Speaker 1: and I really saw this as a responsibility to make sure,
Speaker 1: oh cool, gotta see this movie. But this one was
Speaker 1: bad enough that it actually felt like a waste of time.
Speaker 1: So with all of that being said, this is a
Speaker 1: one of five star movie. This is one star. I
Speaker 1: give it one star because that's the lowest I can
Speaker 1: give it. I could give it zero stars, but it
Speaker 1: was a movie and I did see it in the theater,
Speaker 1: so it does exist, even though it does nothing to
Speaker 1: justify its existence whatsoever. I think you should skip this one.
Speaker 1: I would not even watch it on streaming. Yeah, with
Speaker 1: that leaving the theater is a production of Oh It's
Speaker 1: Big Ron Studios. I mixed this episode, and part of
Speaker 1: this job is watching movies that are not going to
Speaker 1: be good, that are going to be terrible. Typically, I
Speaker 1: like to be in the conflicted range between about two
Speaker 1: and three stars. This one, when it's a one star
Speaker 1: movie that is really a waste of time. It is
Speaker 1: a waste of time. But I still have to record this,
Speaker 1: I have to edit this. I had to pay for
Speaker 1: this ticket. There was no screening, and I'm not surprised
Speaker 1: why there was no screening. When they don't screen a movie,
Speaker 1: it's because they don't want it to get panned. They
Speaker 1: still want to try to make money on it, so
Speaker 1: they let the audience come see it and then let
Speaker 1: the word of mouth end up killing the screenings anyway.
Speaker 1: It's very funny how this works out. I've learned a
Speaker 1: lot about the business of movies in that way. But
Speaker 1: that means I was on the front line, and I'm
Speaker 1: the one telling you not to go see this movie.
Speaker 1: If you have not seen it, do not waste your time.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that to say, that's the type of work
Speaker 1: that I put in here. On leaving the theater, I
Speaker 1: have this, I have wait for it, I have Heartbreaker.
Speaker 1: I have a lot of stuff on my plate right now,
Speaker 1: but I'm working hard and I'm going to get it
Speaker 1: all done because I am relentless, I'm insane, and i
Speaker 1: am resilient. This is a labor of love, but it
Speaker 1: is labor If that means something to you, you should
Speaker 1: join the patreonare dot com slash owits big Ron or
Speaker 1: go to the link in our show notes. Show art
Speaker 1: from Heather Wilder. Theme music by the mysterious Breakmaster Cylinder.
Speaker 1: For more information about Greenland migration, check out our show notes.
Speaker 1: You can follow me on Instagram, blue Sky, TikTok, threads,
Speaker 1: or letterboxed at Owitz Big Ron.
Speaker 2: That's at O H I T S b I g
Speaker 2: R O N.
Speaker 1: You can find out more about this show and other
Speaker 1: Owiz Big Bron Studio shows by following us on Instagram
Speaker 1: at Owitz big Ron Studios. Leaving the theater will be
Speaker 1: back soon. Thanks for listening. I'm Ronald Young Junior and
Speaker 1: I'm but little irritated because I had other stuff to do,