Greenland 2: Migration - When Surviving the Apocalypse Was Just the Beginning (And Maybe the Better Part)

Description: Five years after the comet, the Garritys are back. But is this sequel worth your time? Here’s everything you need to know before buying that ticket.

---

---

The Sequel Curse Strikes Again

Let’s talk about sequels for a moment. You know the drill: A movie comes out, does surprisingly well, and Hollywood immediately starts counting dollar signs. “People loved the first one,” they say, “so they’ll definitely love the second one!” Then they double the budget, add more explosions, and somehow end up with a film that’s less than the sum of its parts.

Welcome to Greenland 2: Migration.

The first Greenland (2020) was a pleasant surprise in the disaster movie genre. It wasn’t trying to be 2012 or The Day After Tomorrow. Instead, it was a grounded, tense thriller about one family’s desperate attempt to survive a planet-killing comet. Gerard Butler wasn’t saving the world—he was just trying to save his wife and diabetic son. The movie earned a “Certified Fresh” 78% on Rotten Tomatoes and a whopping 92% audience score. Not bad for a film that barely got a theatrical release during the pandemic.

So naturally, they made a sequel. And naturally, it’s… fine. Just fine.

Greenland 2: Migration dropped on January 9, 2026, with a 58% Rotten Tomatoes score (from 52 critics) and a 66% audience rating. That’s not terrible, but it’s a noticeable drop from the first film’s numbers. The budget ballooned from $40 million to $90 million, yet the opening weekend box office was a disappointing $8.5 million—landing it in fifth place and well below the $10 million projection.

But here’s the thing: Numbers don’t tell the whole story. So let’s dig into what actually happens in this sequel, whether it’s worth your time, and most importantly—should you stick around for a post-credits scene? (Spoiler alert: No, because there isn’t one.)

---

Quick Refresher: What Happened in Greenland 1

Before we dive into the sequel, let’s quickly recap the first film for those who watched it four years ago and have since forgotten the details (or for those who are considering jumping straight into the sequel—don’t do that, by the way).

The Setup: In 2020’s Greenland, structural engineer John Garrity (Gerard Butler), his estranged wife Allison (Morena Baccarin), and their young son Nathan are living in suburban Atlanta when news breaks that a comet called Clarke is heading toward Earth. At first, it seems like it’ll just be a cool light show. Spoiler: It’s not.

The Crisis: Fragments of the comet start hitting Earth, causing massive destruction. John receives an emergency alert that his family has been selected for evacuation to underground bunkers in Greenland. (Why them? Because Nathan has diabetes and needs insulin—the government is prioritizing people with specific skills or medical needs for genetic diversity. Dark, but logical.)

The Journey: What follows is a harrowing road trip as the Garrity family tries to reach various military evacuation points while society collapses around them. They get separated. Nathan is nearly kidnapped. Allison has to fight off desperate people trying to steal their evacuation bracelets. It’s intense, emotional, and surprisingly realistic in how it portrays human behavior during a crisis.

The Ending: The family reunites and makes it to the bunkers in Greenland just as the largest fragment—a planet-killer—impacts Earth. The film ends with them safe underground, watching the world burn on monitors, with a title card telling us that nine months later, they emerge to find a devastated but survivable planet.

Why It Worked: The first Greenland succeeded because it kept the focus tight. This wasn’t about scientists or presidents or military heroes. It was about a regular family trying not to die. The special effects were solid but not overwhelming. The emotional beats landed. And Gerard Butler, who’s made a career out of playing gruff action heroes, brought genuine vulnerability to the role of a father who’s just trying to keep his family alive.

The film made $52 million theatrically (pandemic release, remember) but became a massive hit on PVOD (Premium Video On Demand), eventually earning $160 million globally. People clearly wanted more.

So here we are.

---

The Story: Five Years Later in a Broken World

Greenland 2: Migration picks up five years after the Clarke comet impact. The world is still a mess—think constant earthquakes, volcanic activity, radiation, and ash-filled skies. The Garritys are still in that Greenland bunker, but things have changed.

Allison has become a leader in the bunker community. John works as a scout and engineer, maintaining the facility. And Nathan? He’s now 15 years old and wants to be a scout like his dad. The family has adapted to their new underground reality.

Then everything goes wrong.

Act One: The Bunker Collapses

Increasingly violent earthquakes cause the bunker to collapse, forcing an emergency evacuation. Most of the survivors die in a subsequent tsunami that destroys the facility. The Garritys, along with Dr. Amina (a scientist) and a handful of others, escape on a small boat with limited fuel, water, and food.

They barely make it to Liverpool, England, where they discover that survival has made people desperate and violent. A gunfight breaks out at another rescue bunker as survivors fight for entry. The family gets separated in the chaos but eventually reunites.

Act Two: The Long Journey

The Garritys and Dr. Amina make their way to London, rest briefly, then continue toward France. Why France? Because rumors in the survivor network suggest that the Clarke crater—located where the Mediterranean Sea and southern Alps used to be—has become habitable. Supposedly, something about the crater’s properties has mitigated the geological and radiation dangers in that area, making it the best place for humanity to rebuild.

There’s just one problem: The region is heavily guarded by military forces, and getting there won’t be easy.

Plot Twist #1: John reveals that his scouting work exposed him to radiation. He’s slowly dying.

Plot Twist #2: On the way to Paris, Dr. Amina is shot and killed by bandits. The family is now on their own.

Act Three: The Mediterranean Desert

Here’s where the movie gets visually interesting (and narratively slower). The family crosses what used to be the Mediterranean Sea—now a wind-swept, dried-out wasteland. It’s an eerie, post-apocalyptic landscape that feels genuinely alien.

In Paris, they’re taken in by a French family who asks them to bring their daughter, Camille, to the Clarke crater. The Garritys agree, and the four of them continue the journey together.

The Climax: So Close, Yet So Far

They reach the military front line protecting the crater region and are escorted toward the safe zone. But bandits ambush their transport convoy. John is shot while protecting the group.

Despite his injuries, the family and Camille make it to the Clarke crater. And the rumors were true: It’s a paradise. Fertile farmland, blue lakes, clear skies without ash or energy storms. The crater has healed.

The Ending (MAJOR SPOILERS)

As the survivors rest before entering the first safe valley, John dies from his injuries. But he dies satisfied, knowing he protected Allison, Nathan, and Camille long enough to get them to safety and a new life.

The film ends with the three survivors walking toward their new home, carrying John’s memory with them.

---

What the Critics Say: Mixed Reviews Explained

So, what did people think of all this?

The Rotten Tomatoes Consensus: “Compared to the big-bang thrills of its predecessor, the end of the world in Greenland 2: Migration is more of a whimper—but Gerard Butler’s steady star power keeps this sequel reasonably compelling.”

That’s… diplomatic. Let’s break down what critics and audiences actually said:

The Critics Were Lukewarm

The Positive Takes:

• Some praised Morena Baccarin’s performance, noting that “Baccarin’s fierce maternal courage shines” and that her character gets more to do in this film.
• The emotional beats landed for some viewers. Mashable wrote: “Get ready, because Greenland 2: Migration will have you gasping and crying before the credits roll.”
• A few critics appreciated the darker, more realistic portrayal of post-apocalyptic survival.

The Negative Takes:

• Many felt the film was “entertaining in places, but overall an average sequel that doesn’t fully realize its potential.”
• The pacing was a common complaint. One review noted: “It works fine as a drama about the remnants of society, but it’s clumsy when it returns to being a disaster movie.”
• Paste Magazine was particularly harsh, titling their review “Close the Borders” and writing: “The world ends in this disastrous sequel, unless that would be inconvenient.”
• Several critics pointed out that the film feels more like a somber drama than an action-packed disaster movie, which may disappoint fans of the first film.

The Audience Was… Meh

With a 66% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes and a 5.9/10 on IMDb, viewers were clearly less enthusiastic than they were for the first film (which had a 92% audience score and 6.4/10 on IMDb).

Common audience complaints:

• The special effects: Multiple viewers noted that despite the $90 million budget, the CGI looked surprisingly cheap in places.
• The pacing: “Great opening, then it slows down” was a recurring theme.
• The tone: Some felt the film was too dark and depressing, lacking the propulsive energy of the first movie.

One Reddit user summed it up: “The ending is very, very sentimental, that’s true. I liked the story’s twist. Solid 6/10 for me. Maybe a 7, but the effects…”

Another viewer on Letterboxd gave it 2.5 out of 5 stars: “Some great death scenes, opening to slow burn.”

---

The Good, The Bad, and The “Meh”

Let’s get specific about what works and what doesn’t in Greenland 2: Migration.

The Good

1. The Performances: Gerard Butler and Morena Baccarin are committed to their roles. Butler brings the same grounded intensity he had in the first film, and Baccarin gets to be more than just “the worried wife” this time—she’s a leader and a fighter.

2. The Opening Sequence: The bunker collapse and tsunami are genuinely tense and well-executed. It’s a strong start that hooks you immediately.

3. The Emotional Core: John’s slow death from radiation poisoning adds real stakes to the journey. You know he’s not going to make it, which gives every scene a bittersweet quality.

4. The Mediterranean Desert: Visually, the dried-up Mediterranean is a striking image that feels fresh in the disaster movie genre.

5. The Ending: If you’re willing to embrace the sentimentality, John’s death scene is genuinely moving. It’s earned, and it gives the story a sense of closure.

The Bad

1. The Budget Paradox: How do you spend $90 million and end up with worse special effects than the $40 million first film? Some of the CGI—particularly the energy storms and certain destruction sequences—looks unfinished.

2. The Pacing: After the intense opening, the film settles into a slow, episodic structure. It’s more “The Road” than “The Day After Tomorrow,” which isn’t necessarily bad, but it’s not what the marketing promised.

3. The Darkness: This is a bleak movie. People die constantly, often in brutal ways. Dr. Amina’s death feels particularly pointless. If you’re looking for escapist entertainment, this ain’t it.

4. The Box Office: That $8.5 million opening weekend suggests audiences weren’t exactly clamoring for this sequel. For comparison, the first film made $52 million theatrically during a pandemic.

The “Meh”

1. The Runtime: At 98 minutes, the film is actually shorter than the first one (119 minutes). Some critics felt it could have used more time to develop certain plot points, while others were grateful it didn’t overstay its welcome.

2. The New Characters: Dr. Amina and Camille are fine, but they’re not particularly memorable. You don’t get enough time with them to really care when bad things happen.

3. The Villain Problem: The “bandits” are generic bad guys. There’s no memorable antagonist like Ralph in the first film (the guy who tries to steal the family’s evacuation bracelets).

---

The Big Question: Should You Watch It?

Alright, let’s cut to the chase. Is Greenland 2: Migration worth your time and money?

You Should Watch It If:

• You loved the first film and want to see how the story continues
• You’re a Gerard Butler completist
• You enjoy post-apocalyptic survival stories more than disaster spectacle
• You don’t mind slower pacing and darker themes
• You’re curious about what happens after the world ends

You Should Skip It If:

• You haven’t seen the first film (seriously, watch that one first—it’s better)
• You’re expecting big-budget disaster porn with constant action
• You found the first film just okay and aren’t invested in the characters
• You’re looking for a fun, escapist movie night
• You’re sensitive to depictions of violence and death

My Recommendation: Wait for streaming or rental. The film isn’t bad enough to avoid entirely, but it’s not good enough to justify a theatrical ticket price—especially when you can watch the superior first film at home for free (if you have the right streaming service).

If you do watch it in theaters, at least you can leave as soon as the credits start rolling. There’s no post-credits scene, no mid-credits stinger, nothing. The filmmakers clearly didn’t think there was going to be a Greenland 3, and honestly? That’s probably for the best.

---

Quick Facts & Final Verdict

Runtime: 98 minutes
Release Date: January 9, 2026 (US)
Budget: $90 million
Opening Weekend: $8.5 million
Rotten Tomatoes: 58% (Critics), 66% (Audience)
IMDb: 5.9/10
Post-Credits Scene: None

My Rating: 6/10

Greenland 2: Migration is a perfectly adequate sequel that suffers from the same problem many sequels face: It doesn’t quite justify its own existence. The first film told a complete story. This one adds a somber epilogue that’s well-acted and occasionally moving, but ultimately feels like an extended denouement rather than a necessary continuation.

If you’re a fan of the first film, you’ll probably find enough to appreciate here. Just don’t expect the same level of tension and excitement. This is a quieter, sadder movie about the long, hard work of survival after the immediate crisis has passed.

And hey, at least it’s better than 2012: The Sequel would have been.