Greenland proves survival doesn’t always need a sequel

Bigger in scope and ambition than the original, Greenland 2: Migration delivers solid disaster spectacle while reinforcing the idea that some stories work best without a follow-up. 

It widens the lens considerably compared to its predecessor and, while the results are often engaging, they also underline how difficult it is to recapture that initial urgency.

Set after humanity’s retreat into underground shelters, the film once again follows John Garrity, played by Gerard Butler returning in familiar, dependable form. This time the challenge is not immediate extinction but relocation, as survivors attempt to reach what is believed to be a more viable long-term refuge. The shift in premise allows the film to explore a changed world rather than repeat the same disaster beats, which is a sensible choice.

Butler remains the emotional anchor, playing John with the same worn determination that grounded the first film. Morena Baccarin, returning as Allison Garrity, is given more space to act, even if the script does not always make the most of that opportunity. The expanded cast adds variety and perspective, helping to sell the idea of a fractured but persistent humanity. Yet, few characters make a lasting impression, existing largely to trigger plot turns or inject conflict on demand.

The film occasionally stumbles in its reliance on familiarity. Some narrative turns feel predictable, and certain action sequences echo moments from the first film too closely. The sense of discovery that drove Greenland is harder to sustain when the audience already understands the rules of this world and “movie world logic” is relied on far too heavily.

Visually, the film is polished and consistent. The environments convey scale and instability, even if they sometimes blur together. The score supports the drama effectively, reinforcing tension without drawing undue attention to itself. However, without giving any spoilers, it must be admitted that the last scenes in the movie do not have the same visual impact, and appear to have been lazily put together.

However, Greenland 2: Migration is far from a cynical cash-in. There is clearly effort to build on the original rather than undermine it, and for viewers invested in the characters, that continuity will be welcome. Still, the film also illustrates a broader truth about sequels: escalation can add scope, but it rarely replaces the impact of a well-contained story told once.

It seems critics agree that this sequel was disappointing compared to the original, with a drop from a generous 78% on Rotten Tomatoes for the original to a barely passing 52% for Migration. IMDb was both less impressed with the original and more generous with the sequel, with 6.4 for the original and 5.9 for the sequel. While, in my opinion, IMDb is probably correct in its assessment of the first movie, its generosity for the sequel is somewhat unfounded. 

Greenland 2: Migration is about disaster, but not a disaster in itself. It is watchable, occasionally gripping, and technically solid. The larger issue is philosophical rather than technical. Not all films need a sequel, and Greenland was one of them. Its power came from containment and finality, from the sense that survival itself was the victory. By reopening that ending and turning it into a franchise-ready arc, Migration undercuts the original’s impact.