¿Por qué me recomiendan ver esta película si es tan conocida?

La verdad es que, aunque la trama sea predecible, la ejecución es sólida y los actores tienen un buen desempeño. Además, es una buena oportunidad para reflexionar sobre cómo una familia puede unirse en momentos críticos.

¿Es adecuada para toda la familia?

Sí, aunque hay algunos momentos tensos, la película no es demasiado violenta ni inapropiada para los más pequeños.

¿Qué tipo de película es?

La película es un drama de desastres, con un buen equilibrio entre acción y drama.

¿Es una película que vale la pena ver en el cine?

No, si prefieres ver una película en el cine, hay otros títulos que pueden ser más impactantes y emocionantes.

¿Qué es lo mejor de la película?

La verdad es que, me encantó la capacidad de la película para mantenerme en vilo y la sólida ejecución de la trama.

¿Qué es lo peor de la película?

La debilidad de los efectos especiales y la falta de lógica en algunos de los actos de los personajes.

¿Es una película que se puede ver en casa?

Sí, aunque es una buena opción para pasar una tarde en casa, no es una película que te haga preguntarte qué va a pasar a continuación.

¿Hay algún personaje que sea especialmente interesante?

La verdad es que, el personaje de John Garry es el más interesante de la película, ya que es el que tiene que salvar a su familia en medio de la catástrofe.

¿Por qué es importante ver esta película?

Es importante ver esta película porque ofrece una perspectiva interesante sobre la unión familiar en momentos críticos y cómo una familia puede sobrevivir en medio de la catástrofe.

Pros y contras de Groenlandia

Hello, friends. I'm glad to share with you my thoughts on the first Greenland movie, which, now that the second part is about to be released, my husband wants to see in the cinema.

We are passionate about disaster movies, even those of lesser quality, because they allow us to feel grateful for the tranquility and peace of our daily lives.

We did see "Grenlandia" at the time, and now that we have the opportunity to see it again before the sequel's release, we decided to take advantage of it to remember it and maintain the intrigue of this disaster movie.

And so, I write this review.

SYNOPSIS

The story is a standard, familiar, and clichéd scenario, typical of movies in this genre.

The official description tells us that in all media, there's talk of a comet approaching the Earth, but for engineer John Garry, what really worries him is how to save his marriage in crisis.

The family is at the center of the story, and the family has problems. One of its members is ill and requires constant monitoring of their condition and the use of medication.

Imagine something so predictable that it leaves no room for surprise. The family is in a quiet neighborhood when the shockwave from the impact of the first part of the comet reaches their home, and through all channels, they start broadcasting terrifying images of destruction.

I don't want to go into details because I'm sure readers will understand immediately that I'm talking about that. And, of course, the location of the "secret bunker".

What caught my attention was another aspect of the plot: the idea that, in the film, Greenland is already a completely American place. I didn't see representatives of other peoples, including the Inuit, who are native to Greenland.

THE CHARACTERS AND ACTORS

As I mentioned earlier, I was given a family of three members, who are also the three main characters: the father, Jerard Butler, a man who seeks redemption; the mother, Morana Baccarin, a beautiful but not very intelligent woman, who has just undergone plastic surgery; and the son, Roger Dale Floyd, a child who reminds me of our Gnomycha.

Jerard Butler is an actor who is familiar to me, although I don't remember having seen him in other films. Morana's face is unforgettable, especially her plastic nose. Roger's face is familiar to me, and after investigating a bit, I discovered that he has acted in the movie "The Doctor Sleep". I wonder if he doesn't play a character I know, but I can't remember exactly who it is. I should go back and watch the movie, I love Fergusson and adore McGregor.

I have nothing to object to the actors' performance. All the uncomfortable moments are related to the plot's problems, and some of their foolishness does indeed take place in stressful situations.

I'm sorry to say it, but the main character, the father, doesn't seem consistent, as he sometimes refuses to help his friends and then suddenly becomes a hero who saves strangers. Even people he himself had put in danger. In the end, everything seems like a lack of sincerity. If they wanted to show a "little man" who only cares about his family, they should have kept that line.

DISASTER OR MELODRAMA?

I'm sorry to say it, but "Grenlandia" turned out to be much more of a melodrama than a disaster.

There are many other films that combine these two genres in a skilled way. Here, the disaster arises and disappears without any development. Sometimes everything seems so calm and well that the characters seem to forget they need to escape.

The special effects are disappointing, barely a 3 out of 10.

KLISHEE AND WHAT 'GRÉNLANDIA' TEACHES

Besides the clichés I mentioned earlier, there are others that seem worrying to me: a family member older than not understanding the value of fighting for their survival; bad people who want to harm my family (which, by the way, consists of three people); good people who offer to help my family; and my family's luck, which always seems to be in their favor, even in situations that seem to have no way out.

What bothers me most in these films (not "Grenlandia," but in general) is the idea that it's acceptable to sacrifice anyone for the survival of my family and me. It's like it's something normal, even if my family hurts an innocent person or doesn't help when they could.

These moments teach the viewer (and any film, although it may seem that it doesn't have a load of meaning, teaches something), that it's acceptable to save oneself at the expense of others, even if they're innocent, and that only this type of behavior gives an opportunity for survival.

In reality, this idea is not only morally questionable but also false, because:

1) in reality, sooner or later, someone stronger, smarter, luckier, or faster than my family will find a way to eliminate them without feeling the slightest remorse.

2) and it's likely that they'll find a greater number of people who simply "crush them with numbers".

There's no doubt that in a survival situation, those who act in groups have more chances of surviving, helping, and supporting each other.

I'm glad to say that in "Grenlandia," this idea was reflected, although not with the force it could have had. I was terrified, expecting most people to be cruel, but it turned out they weren't. Only a few behaved aggressively, and some didn't even try to.

The unexpected was that in these types of movies, a relevant but not main character is often introduced, such as the U.S. government embodied by the president or his advisors. Although they can't act without the help of the protagonist, at least they show a deep concern for the people.

We see some military personnel, but they're not developed into a prominent figure. In fact, the vast majority of the great nation's great army is presented in a ridiculous way.

Complete stupidity in every step of the plot and what "Grenlandia" tries to teach.

The truth is that the main problem lies in the narrative. I'm referring to the way the characters act in certain situations, such as when the father of the family refuses to help his friends, despite their desperate situation.

I find it absurd that they can't go with them and find out what's happening in that place. Why can't they simply go to investigate and come back with information?

The same thing happens with the rifle scene. The grandfather realizes it's dangerous, but instead of going with them, he just gives them the gun and lets them go. Why couldn't he have gone with them and made sure they're safe?

The most ridiculous scene is when the protagonist prevents the plane from taking off, putting the lives of everyone on board at risk, and then, without hesitation, the passengers give up their seats and the pilot helps them. It's simply absurd.

And what's worse, they not only prevent the takeoff but also get into the plane without considering that their presence could make the plane too heavy to take off.

After that, the characters suddenly start acting in a...

But I'll stop at some because, finally, they teach something useful:

1) Don't brag if no one has asked you to. It's a fundamental mistake!

The mom of the team would have eliminated their chances of survival from the start because of this same reason.

2) If the world is collapsing and you have a collar that gives you an advantage over others, don't take advantage of it to annoy others.

3) Work hard to be good at your job, and you won't regret it. This way, you'll have more chances of reaching the future than many.

4) Of course, family is something sacred, and you should face problems instead of running away from them.

REVIEW

It doesn't stay in memory, and it's not a film you want to see again. The plot is predictable and sometimes unfinished, with many clichés. Some scenes are so absurd that they irritate.

As a disaster movie, the film is very weak, with special effects that don't impress.

I think the tension during the film remains present, and even from a film like this, you can learn something useful.

I give it a 3 and a thumbs up.

The last events in the world politics make me think that the second part of "Grenlandia 2: Migration" will be just as disappointing as the first. It's being released tomorrow, January 29, and my partner and I are going to see it in the cinema. It should inspire us! I should write a new review.

If you're interested, I'll leave my review of the film "The Long Walk" by King. It's a bit worse, in my opinion. You can click on the title or here.

Thanks for your attention!