Greenland 2: Migration


The best parts of the first “Greenland” (2020)” film is that this is an asteroid movie that has a realistic perspective about what would happen in the case when an asteroid is too big there would be nothing humanity could ever do to stop it from hitting the earth. An asteroid too huge to stop would erase either the entire population of the planet or a large percentage of it either because of the heat blast after impact or the radiation that would follow. All humanity can do to continue is to select a group of people who might be able to bring humanity back from intinction by protecting them in deep caves, in locations like Greenland, which is essentially the plot of the first movie.

The sequel to Greenland is “Greenland 2 Migration”, and once again stars Gerard Butler and, and Morena Baccarin as John and Allison Garrity along with their son Nathan now five years older played by Roman Griffin Davis. This version of a destroyed planet earth is about as pessimistic as the first movie, with the air loaded with radiation, tectonic shifts in the earths crust, huge electrical storms, criminal marauders robbing and killing people, along with human beings spending 5 years in very close quarters, slowly running out of food and supplies.

The problem with this sequel is that it violates a fundamental rule of screenwriting. In order for a story to make sense the characters have to do things that not only make sense but are what a real person would do – especially in the case where John Garrity is constantly in charge of trying to rescue his family from certain death.

Early in this story there is talk of relatively good odds that the impact crater made by the comet Clarke has started to create new life. After the caves in Greenland are no longer habitable, the Garrity family makes a trek across Greenland to make their way to the Clarke crater, largely based on second hand rumor and speculation. In real life people would not risk their lives so many times based on this level of remote speculation. The good news is that there is a strong possibility that this will be the last Greenland movie, which is a shame because it means another possible movie franchise is once again lost, all because a good enough story idea was not created before making this below average B-level film.

This time around the Rotten Tomatoes ratings of 53% are correct based on the obvious logistical and human decisions that are too flawed, making this movie impossible to recommend.

Movie Review: We Bury the Dead


The new movie “We Bury the Dead”, has a logline on IMDB that reads: “After a catastrophic military disaster, the dead don’t just rise – they hunt. Ava searches for her missing husband, but what she finds is far more terrifying.”

This movie will likely rank as one of the most boring and innocuous zombie movies of all time. Yes, this is yet another zombie movie; however, this one has an amazingly low count of violent zombie scenes or any zombie scenes, after a woman, Ava, played by Daisy Ridley, arrives in New Zealand, the site of this military accident, and tries to find her husband Mitch, played by Matt Whelan with the help of another man, Clay, played by Brenton Thwaites.

The rest of this film is nothing more than an unexpectedly long and boring trek with Ava and Clay through New Zealand to travel 300 miles south to the site of the resort where Ava’s husband was staying. The majority of the victims of this military accident are dead, but a small percentage of the victims become alive and, for reasons unknown, cause only very minor incidents as Clay and Ava travel south. I remember wondering at the time, is this a zombie movie or a travelogue of New Zealand? Also, this movie is so boring it was hard to believe this could ever be considered an action movie, or even a drama.

The high Rotten Tomatoes ratings for this bad movie are 84%, which is as crazy as this bad zombie movie. The audience rating is a more accurate 49%. Before it’s too late, the producer should change the title from “We Bury the Dead” to “We Bury this Movie”. This one is a huge miss and receives a 10% rating.

Movie Review: Anaconda


The new movie “Anaconda” is not a remake of the 1997 movie “Anaconda” that starred Jennifer Lopez, John Voight, and Ice Cube. This new version is about four people who are friends, who decide to make a “reboot” of the movie Anaconda, which means that this is a movie about making another movie that was released 28 years ago. There is no doubt that this is a new idea for a screenplay, but unfortunately, it is so idiotic, unfunny, and stupid that there is no way this film should have been greenlit and financed for $45 million dollars.

The most amazing thing about this bad movie is why Paul Rudd, Jack Black, Steve Zahn, and Thandiwe Newton could have read this script, agreed to fly to Australia for months of hardship to make a movie that is this so obviously bad. This film is supposed to be a parody or comedy of the original Anaconda movie, but there was not one laugh in the audience I was in, and almost no moment that was even slightly amusing. Ironically, the movie that was worse than this movie was the film the characters were trying to make inside of this idiotic mess. Then during this story, the four friends run into another production crew also trying to make another reboot of Anaconda. What level of drug use is required to think of this many bad ideas for one film?

The Rotten Tomatoes ratings for this bad movie is only 50%, with my rating 10% and a recommendation to “whatever you do, miss this disaster of movie making at all costs”.