[Movie Review] Greenland: The Last Two Days on Earth

Perhaps it's because a year has passed since the start of the pandemic and we've reached a point where we need to release some pent-up energy, or maybe I'm just starving for flashy Hollywood movies, but every (big-budget, flashy) movie I've watched lately has been interesting. I thought this one would just be a B-grade disaster movie that relies solely on flashy CG (though, of course, the CG is incredible), but it wasn't. Maybe it feels more real and hits closer to home precisely because of the times we're living in. Here are my thoughts on the ultimate emergency situation movie, 'Greenland: The Last Two Days on Earth'.

For genre movies, I think adding some kind of constraint to the situation is what gives the work its originality. For example, in 'A Quiet Place,' which recently had a sequel released, the situation of 'an Earth dominated by monsters' is constrained by the rule 'you must not make a sound.' In the Korean horror film 'Train to Busan,' the 'zombie' situation is constrained by being 'trapped inside a train.' In other words, I think the challenge is how intense a constraint you can place on a common movie situation, and in a sense, I think 'Greenland' is a movie that has applied the ultimate constraint. The outrageous situation is 'the Earth will be destroyed by the arrival of a giant comet,' and the constraint this movie places on it is that 'the protagonist is an ordinary person (a regular citizen).'

Honestly, I thought, 'That's a clever approach.' Disaster movies up until now have, in a sense, had protagonists who survive by working abnormally hard, having abnormal luck, or actually possessing special abilities. If you decide not to use any of that, it feels like you might be able to see something new. It would have realism, so I'd likely empathize with it, which is why I wanted to see it. However, when I thought about it carefully, I wondered what an ordinary citizen could actually do in such a situation. For instance, if I were the protagonist, would I just find a place to evacuate and stay put? Or would I just give up and do nothing? Actually, I think I'd probably die halfway through. In other words, no matter how you look at it, it doesn't seem like it would make for a drama. So, I went to see it wondering how this movie would handle that, and it was exquisite. It hits exactly on those points where you think, 'Ah, I would do that in that situation.'

Basically, the situation in this movie is 'despair.' A giant comet is coming, and the Earth will be destroyed in two days. As the story progresses, it is depicted step by step that this is something that cannot be avoided (so the horror in this movie isn't an unknown, mysterious terror. It's a terror where there is no room for that, a terror where everything is known. It's a situation where you can no longer hide anything. In a sense, I thought this was the scariest part). In the midst of this, they first give the protagonist's family a little bit of hope. There is a system where only people randomly selected by the government (though whether it's random or intentional isn't revealed in the movie) are accommodated in a shelter in Greenland, and the protagonist's family is chosen (and there's a mean-spirited development where the notification that they've been chosen arrives right in the middle of a party they're hosting for their neighbors). In other words, this gives the protagonist a reason to act. This part is realistic. If there weren't a clear reason like this, and it was just about a sense of justice or simply doing it for the family, those would be people with a different mentality than ours. Therefore, this situation of 'you might be the only ones specially saved' depicts a protagonist who has both the ego of wanting to be saved and a reason to act. Actually, I think the most interesting part of this movie is that the need to survive as a disaster movie protagonist and the question of 'do you really want to survive that badly?' are constantly running side by side.

So, in this situation, there really isn't a 'correct' choice (the fact that what you choose is up to you is something we can understand well given our current position, which was a plus for watching this movie. The way the government was portrayed was also good. It's no longer about whether you trust them or not, but rather that you have no choice but to bet on the side that has even the slightest possibility). It's really just about whether you want to live or die (choosing death carries as much weight as surviving. It's a situation where you might even think it's more humanly correct to choose death here). You're constantly faced with those two choices, and basically, everyone is going to die. I've seen several disaster movies of this type, but this feeling was a first. How should I put it? It's the feeling of, 'Oh, I see, I'm going to die.' There's the realization that you'll die nine times out of ten, and while there is a truly slim path where you might survive, even if you do, it might be hell. I've never thought about which is better, dying or living, with such a flat perspective. So, this becomes a story about 'why do humans live?' But at the same time, it hasn't forgotten its pride as a B-grade disaster movie; the balance between the flashy destruction of the Earth as a spectacle, the life-or-death action, and the philosophical depiction of human life hidden behind it creates a distortion I've never seen before (the irony of the people gathering on the roof of a building to party while comet fragments are falling everywhere, and the way things like that are included without any explanation, made me feel uneasy in a good way).

So, in the midst of all that, what does this movie depict as the way for ordinary citizens to live? It's about fighting against the bad guys and helping each other with kind-hearted neighbors. I thought that was simple and really good (and honestly, I think this is a masterpiece that transcends its genre, so if you haven't seen it yet, please do).