Greenland 2: Migration (2026) vs Greenland (2020): Review, Comparison & Which is Better

What happens after the world ends? The first Greenland (2020) gave us a heart-pounding race against the clock. Its sequel, Greenland 2: Migration (2026), offers a plodding journey across the wasteland—and a harsh lesson in why follow-ups often fail to capture the magic. This isn’t just a review of the new movie; it’s a head-to-head comparison. The first film is a gripping 8/10 thrill ride about society’s fragile collapse. The sequel is a 6/10 slog that relies too much on dumb luck and forgets what made us care in the first place. Let’s break down where the franchise went right, and where it lost its way.

Part 1: Greenland (2020) – The Thrill of Collapse

The Story: A planet-killing comet is hurtling toward Earth. Structural engineer John Garrity (Gerard Butler) learns his family is among the select few chosen for shelter in Greenland. What follows is a relentless, terrifying dash across a disintegrating America.

Why It Worked (My Rating: 8/10):

I love how this movie shows that countries, society, and order in cities collapsed in minutes. Literally. From that perspective, this post-apocalyptic world reveals how fragile our peace and structure really are. Beyond the chilling premise, it was a personal, grounded thriller. The Garrity family faces nightmare after nightmare: losing each other in chaos, missing their military transport, and having their diabetic son abducted by desperate people who think his medical bracelet is a ticket to safety. It was tense, believable, and emotionally engaging from start to finish. A definitely good post-apocalyptic movie I can rewatch.

Part 2: Greenland 2: Migration (2026) – The Slog of Survival

The Story: Picking up after the comet’s impact, the Garrity family has been living in a Greenland bunker. When it becomes compromised, they must embark on a perilous migration across the frozen, decimated wreck of Europe to reach a rumored safe haven at the impact crater in France.

Where It Stumbles (My Rating: 6/10):

The sequel had moments that grabbed my attention, showcasing a stark, post-apocalyptic world. However, it was undercut by long, dull scenes that made it boring. My biggest issue? The story depends mostly on dumb luck for the Garritys' survival. They survive impossible situations and traverse a deadly continent through a series of highly convenient, unearned escapes. After a while, it became hard to stay invested. What was a tense fight for survival in the first film became a checklist of lucky breaks in the second.

Head-to-Head Comparison: The Numbers Don’t Lie

Let’s look at the critical and commercial reception, which mirrors my own experience.

Greenland (2020):

• IMDb: 6.4/10 (163,000 users)
• Rotten Tomatoes: 78% Critics / 63% Audience
• Box Office: $52.3 million (on a $35 million budget) – A modest success.
• Verdict: Critics embraced its tight, intense focus.

Greenland 2: Migration (2026):

• IMDb: 5.3/10
• Rotten Tomatoes: 49% Critics / 66% Audience
• Box Office: $25.8 million (on a $90 million budget) – A major financial flop.
• Verdict: Critics panned it, and audiences rated it significantly lower than the first. The box office crash confirms the audience’s lack of interest.

The data is clear: the sequel failed to resonate. Critics found it unfocused (49% vs. 78%), and the audience score drop on IMDb (5.3 vs. 6.4) shows fans felt the decline in quality. Spending $90 million to earn only $25 million is a disaster mirroring the film’s on-screen apocalypse.

Final Verdict: Stick With the Original

The first Greenland succeeds because it’s a focused, terrifying disaster thriller about the immediate panic of the end. Greenland 2: Migration fails as a meandering post-apocalyptic road trip that replaces suspense with convenience.

My Final Ratings:

Greenland (2020): 8/10 – A tense, smart survival film that makes you feel the fragility of civilization.

Greenland 2: Migration (2026): 6/10 – A disappointing, often boring sequel that survives on plot armor instead of genuine tension.

If you haven't seen either, watch the first one and pretend it’s a standalone film. Its ending is satisfying enough. The sequel is only for completists who don’t mind a significant drop in stakes and storytelling quality.

Did you see both movies? Do you agree the sequel relied too much on luck, or did you enjoy the expanded journey? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Suggest a movie for my next review! I’m looking for a truly great, tense survival film to wash away the disappointment.

If you enjoyed this comparative deep dive, please share to support the blog. Thanks for reading—see you in the next one!

See also My full list of 2026 movie reviews →