What separates the wheat from the chaff in any disaster film is a true sense of tension and peril, and I found that Greenland definitely fulfilled that criteria. Very quickly, we found ourselves watching on the edge of our seats as a series of catastrophic events played out.
In terms of plot and narrative, I didn’t find that Greenland particularly brought anything new to the table. It follows a standard disaster film template. This is merely an observation rather than a criticism.
I have seen several reviews remark on a mixed accent, and thus a mixed performance, from Butler in Greenland. I never noticed any problems with his accent and I felt that his performance was good as a man just trying to protect his family and help them survive. I also thought that Morena Baccarin and Roger Dale Floyd were great in their roles.
As with any disaster film, there were moments where a bit of suspended belief was required but on the scale of realism for disaster films, I did feel that Greenland felt higher on the scale compared to many of its counterparts.
Interestingly, though I was utterly engaged in Greenland during its running time, it has proved to be reasonably forgettable in the mere twenty four hours between watching it and writing this review. This isn’t necessarily a problem for me as I don’t believe that films need to stick in your mind to be a good film. However, it is true that the great ones do.
Overall, Greenland was a film that kept us entertained and engaged throughout. It is full of suspense and tension and will make you question what you would do if the world was ending. Though it is unlikely to make my top films of the year, it is pretty much a perfect Saturday night film.
The rating: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Comments
Post a Comment