“We Can Be Heroes” stars Priyanka Chopra Jonas, Pedro Pascal, Haley Reinhart, YaYa Gosselin, Boyd Holbrook, Sung Kang, Taylor Dooley, and Christian Slater.  Released on Netflix on December 25, 2020, the film is about a group of children who must work together to save their superhero parents.

The film was written and directed by Robert Rodriguez, who also directed films such as “Desperado”, “From Dusk till Dawn”, “Spy Kids”, “Sin City”, and “Alita: Battle Angel”.  It serves as a spin-off to the 2005 film “The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl”.  Heroes come in all shapes and sizes.  When it comes to this film, they really put the emphasis on “sizes”.  In addition to his work on some adult-rated films like “Sin City” and “Machete”, Robert Rodriguez also made himself known with his work on some bizarre, yet somehow charming, family-friendly material, most notably the “Spy Kids” franchise.  While some of them weren’t able to impress everyone with their goofiness and their visual style, especially the fourth “Spy Kids” film, they have that sense of kid-friendly imagination to provide some entertainment value.  I grew up watching “Spy Kids” as well as “Sharkboy and Lavagirl”, so I was pretty curious to see Rodriguez returning to his goofy, child-like roots with this latest superhero film.  With that in mind, let’s travel back to the director’s “kid-tastic” world and see if it’s worth watching during the holiday season.

Set in a fictional Earth, the film tells the story of a team of superheroes known as the Heroics.  Not only do they fight to protect their city from evil, but they also have kids who have super abilities as well.  When an alien race invades Earth and captures the planet’s mightiest protectors, their kids are sent to Heroics Headquarters, lead by Ms. Granada (Jonas), for protection.  However, one of those kids isn’t going down without a fight, and that’s Missy Moreno (Gosselin), the daughter of the retired superhero swordsman Marcus Moreno (Pascal) and the only kid who doesn’t possess any powers.  Missy would have to form a team of her own with the other super children in order to save their parents as well as the world.  In other words, it’s “Spy Kids” meets “Marvel’s The Avengers”.  For those who are unfamiliar with Rodriguez’s other family films, the only way I can describe his style in the film is that it’s equivalent to seeing a child’s dream.  It’s zany and light-hearted to a fault, but it’s also pretty endearing to witness.  While it helps to cheer up people that are in need of some silliness, this type of style doesn’t usually work all of the time when it comes to the storytelling.  “Sharkboy and Lavagirl”, “Shorts”, and the recent “Spy Kids” film from 2011 were the examples that happened to prove that theory.  “We Can Be Heroes” did happen to be the latest victim to fall into some familiar trappings, but it had enough charm and imagination in its concept to make it another watchable addition to Rodriguez’s kiddie collection.  The film featured plenty of big-time celebrities, such as Priyanka Chopra Jonas, Pedro Pascal, and even Boyd Holbrook from the Netflix series “Narcos”.  It also had Taylor Dooley reprising her role as Lavagirl from “Sharkboy and Lavagirl” for the sake of pleasing some fans of that film as well as Christopher McDonald, who reprises his role as the President of the United States from “Spy Kids 2: The Island of Lost Dreams”.  So for those who grew up with Rodriguez’s other family films, this film is pretty much a glorious trip down memory lane.  However, the real stars of the film were the kid actors, including YaYa Gosselin.  The performances from the cast ranged from enjoyable to below average, but the kid actors did make an effort to hold the film together, especially Gosselin, who did all right with her performance as Missy, and Vivien Blair, who delivered some pretty humorous moments as Guppy, the daughter of Sharkboy and Lavagirl.  As for the visuals, they were acceptable, especially the CGI effects.  Some of them weren’t exactly convincing because of its low budget and its awkward stunt work, but other than that, they’re fine.  The script and the characters were basically the main issues that could turn away plenty of people who haven’t watched “Spy Kids” or “Sharkboy and Lavagirl”.  Even though the story delivered some entertaining moments and offered a heartwarming message about teamwork, Rodriguez’s script can be a bit too corny for its own good.  It’s very simplistic, for better or for worse, yet also cute.  However, some of the dialogue couldn’t quite capture the proper balance of cringe and silly as they lean a bit towards the former.  The characters themselves weren’t exactly well-developed or memorable either, but they’re delightful enough to power their way out of mediocrity.

Overall, “We Can Be Heroes” should impress plenty of families with its goofy and uplifting charm, but its heroic deeds might not be enough to satisfy those outside of that group.  Robert Rodriguez made a kid-friendly version of “The Avengers” that’s more corny than emotional due to its flawed script and average characters.  However, its likable cast and the director’s ability to combine its cheesy, low-budget quality with its bizarre and comical appeal are enough to keep me entertained.  I usually enjoyed Rodriguez’s oddball style when I was young, but now that I am older and more wiser, I’m starting to see that it does have its share of problems.  Nevertheless, it will still remain a place in my heart for how surreal and enjoyable it is.  If you’re a fan of the director’s filmography, most notably the “Spy Kids” films, it’s worth a watch on Netflix.

“Soul” stars Jamie Foxx, Tina Fey, Questlove, Phylicia Rashad, Daveed Diggs, and Angela Bassett.  Released on Disney+ on December 25, 2020, the film is about a music teacher who accidentally gets transported to the land of souls.

The film is directed by Pete Docter, who also directed “Monsters, Inc.”, “Up”, and “Inside Out”.  How do you want to spend your life?  That’s the question that’s been on our minds ever since we arrived on Earth, and what better way to represent this question than with the magic of Disney and Pixar.  Originally scheduled for a summer release, the film fell victim to the pandemic curse and had to settle for a fall/winter release.  Seeing that the theaters weren’t going to be reopened in time for its big screen debut, Disney decided to go with a much different approach, and that approach is releasing it straight to Disney+ on Christmas Day at no extra cost, making this the first Pixar film to not have a wide theatrical release.  So for those who are worried that it’s going to get the “Premier Access” treatment like the “Mulan” remake, worry no more.  Even though I was disappointed that I won’t be able to see this latest Pixar film on the big screen, I was still extremely excited to see it regardless, mostly due to Pete Docter’s involvement.  Docter’s track record as a director so far is nothing but fantastic as he had already directed three original films for Pixar that became critical and commercial successes.  In terms of the reviews it got, it looks like this film is already on its way to become the next Pixar classic.  Now that it’s here, is it soulful enough to earn this title?  Let’s find out.

The film tells the tale of Joe Gardner (Foxx), a middle school music teacher who dreams of performing jazz music onstage with the other musicians, including jazz legend Dorothea Williams (Bassett).  After impressing them during an opening act, he finally gets the opportunity to make his dream come true.  However, an untimely accident causes Joe’s soul to be separated from his body and wound up on the path towards the Great Beyond.  He managed to escape to the Great Before, a realm where souls develop personalities, quirks, and traits before being sent to Earth.  In order to get back to his own body, Joe would have to teach the souls in training about the values of life, including 22 (Fey), a soul who has a much different perspective on the concept.  The film has the Pixar team once again exploring one of the main qualities that make us humans tick.  Docter’s last film, “Inside Out”, represents a person’s emotions and how each of their roles are equally important in their everyday life.  In “Soul”, the main focus is placed on…well, people’s souls.  Souls that define who we are as well as our interests.  This is Pixar’s way of teaching young viewers about life and death through creativity and animation, but more importantly, it teaches them about the true purpose of our existence.  With the assistance of co-writer/co-director Kemp Powers (the man behind the 2013 play One Night in Miami), Pete Docter was able to place this story within the African-American culture, which showcased the continuous strength of Pixar’s support for diversity.  It didn’t follow in the same shoes as “Coco” when it comes to the narrative’s structure, but it’s suitable enough to let other filmmakers know that we need more animated films that showcase all types of cultures.  As for the film itself, well, it’s actually no surprise that it has a big enough soul to stand alongside some of Pixar’s top-tier classics like “Toy Story” and even “Inside Out”.  The story was basically simple like many other Pixar films that came before it, but it’s told in a way that the animation studio is known for since its inception.  It’s fun, endearing, and colorful for the kids, but it’s also meaningful, thought-provoking, and emotional for the adults.  Pete Docter is known for his ability to showcase the realities of life in an imaginative and thoughtful way without dumbing things down for the young viewers like most animated films do nowadays, which made his past two films, “Up” and “Inside Out”, beloved classics to begin with.  I’m glad to see that his ability still remains undefeated thanks to his direction and a smartly-written screenplay by Docter, Mike Jones, and Kemp Powers.  The characters also remain as one of Pixar’s strongest points not just because of how memorable and charming they are, but also because of how relatable and heartfelt they are, and Joe Gardner (who is voiced marvelously by Jamie Foxx) happens to be one of those characters.  He’s likable enough to take me on his personal journey to rediscover his true purpose in life.  Tina Fey was also great in her role as 22.  Her character was able to balance her dim and snarky personality with some pretty effective humor without making herself a bane of one’s existence.  The next element I really want to mention is the film’s animation.  Wow, where do I even start?  Everything about it was pure Pixar magic, including its detailed settings, the jazz sequences, and the ingenious character designs.  The New York setting looked absolutely stunning from start to finish.  The lighting and the realistic details on…well, pretty much everything helped made the setting look and feel like actual New York.  For the humans characters, the animators made an effort to make sure that they don’t appear as “stereotypical” because as you can already tell, the world of animation has its share of issues when it comes to racist imagery.  I thought they did a nice job with how they design the characters, especially Joe Gardner.  These characters are distinct enough to make themselves look like actual people.  The animators really knocked it out of the park with this one.  Then we have the “Great Beyond”, which is Pixar’s version of the afterlife, and the “Great Before”, and they were also beautiful to look at, but not as much as the animation for New York.  They definitely have that unique sense of creativity on how these elements are presented, similar to what “Inside Out” did with the human mind, which helped provide a good amount of world-building and a strong metaphoric essence within those realms.  I also loved the designs of the souls and the soul counselors in general, especially the latter due to their own animation style compared to the rest of the characters.  The souls themselves were definitely something that only the artists from Pixar could come up with, and I wasn’t disappointed with the final result.  The music is also something that I have to talk about because it sounded incredible.  The original score was composed by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, the same team who created music for some of David Fincher’s works, including the recently released “Mank”, but it also featured jazz music from musician Jon Batiste in order to fit the authenticity of its jazzy setting.  The score had its own sense of energetic flair and emotion behind the given tracks, especially the jazz sections, which were my favorite parts of “Soul”.  This might be one of the best scores I had ever heard in an animated film in my opinion, let alone a Pixar film.

Overall, “Soul” is pure Pixar poetry, proving once again that the animation studio can’t be beat when it comes to originality.  Pete Docter has delivered another thoughtful and beautiful animated gem that respectively showcases one of the aspects of life and represents strong storytelling through the art of animation.  With its well-developed characters, a superb story, stunning animation, and some great music, the film shows that it really has a soul.  This is not only the best animated film I’ve seen so far this year, but it’s also one of the best films of 2020 in my opinion.  It’s available to watch on Disney+, so make sure you grab your family members and check it out as soon as possible.  You won’t be disappointed.

“Wonder Woman 1984” stars Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Kristen Wiig, Pedro Pascal, Robin Wright, and Connie Nielsen.  Released on December 25, 2020, the film has Wonder Woman facing off against a businessman and a formidable foe.

The film is directed by Patty Jenkins, who is known for directing “Monster”, and it is a sequel to the 2017 superhero film, “Wonder Woman”, which was also directed by Jenkins.  It is also the ninth installment in the DC Extended Universe, and it is based on the DC Comics character of the same name created by William Moulton Marston.  Looks like we’re about to end this horrific year off with a huge bang.  After surviving a few months with a bunch of small films, we are finally getting a big-budget action blockbuster.  A big-budget superhero action blockbuster, to be exact, but with a twist.  This film has had a difficult journey since filming had wrapped in 2018.  It was originally set for a 2019 release until it got delayed to a summer release.  But then the pandemic happened, and it got stuck in release limbo.  It was scheduled to be released in theaters back in October in hopes of getting people back into the cinemas, but due to “Tenet” underperforming at the box office, it had to settle for a Christmas Day release.  With the virus still keeping people inside their homes, Warner Brothers then decided to do the unthinkable, the impossible, and the unbelievable.  They are keeping the theatrical release, but they will also release the film on HBO Max free for subscribers…for about a month, of course.  A surprising, but smart, way to let people decide whether to stay home or go to the cinema.  Wonder Woman has a very good track record when it comes to film thanks to Gal Gadot’s portrayal and director Patty Jenkins’s understanding of the character.  Her appearance has proven to be the best part of the Batman/Superman blockbuster and the heavily-divisive “Justice League” film, and her solo film is considered to be the best installment in the troublesome DC cinematic universe.  So there’s definitely a lot of hype towards the Amazonian’s latest adventure despite it being delayed several times.  Now that it’s finally arrived in theaters (and on HBO Max), let’s see if this superhero blockbuster is worth the long wait, and don’t worry, I will do my best to keep things spoiler-free for you readers.

Taking place in 1984, the film follows Diana Prince (Gadot) as she pulls double duty as both a normal anthropologist in Washington, D.C. and as the superhero Wonder Woman.  She later encounters Maxwell Lord (Pascal), a businessman who has gained possession of a mysterious item that has an ability to grant people’s wishes.  With the help of the revived Steve Trevor (Pine), Diana must use her powers once again to save the world from Lord’s power.  She also has to battle her former friend Barbara Ann Minerva (Wiig), an archeologist whose involvement with the powerful artifact resulted in her gaining abilities similar to Diana’s.  “Wonder Woman” was a fish-out-of-water story that explores the title character’s journey of heroism and represents the importance of love overcoming hatred, which was one of the things that I personally enjoyed from the film, aside from Gadot’s performance and Patty Jenkins’s approach to the character.  “Wonder Woman 1984” sees the already-experienced character continuing that journey while dealing with the dangers of wishes, especially the ones that involve greed and envy, and what they’re giving up in order to gain them.  I watched the film on HBO Max for this review instead of in the theater because I wasn’t willing to risk my life seeing it in a packed room.  Thankfully, I didn’t experience any streaming issues while watching it.  Then again, I managed to view it during the nighttime rather than during the day like a lot of people did, which might explain why I didn’t have those issues.  Long story short, watching the film at home was a good experience for me due to the fact that I wasn’t distracted by other people using their stinking cell phones.  Even though I would prefer to watch it on the big screen, it felt nice for me to just sit back at home and watch Wonder Woman beat up the bad guys on my family’s huge 4K television for free.  But how did I feel about the film itself?  Was it good enough to consider itself a wondrous end to the horrifying plague that is 2020?  Yeah, I believe so.  I wouldn’t say that it’s a perfect superhero sequel in terms of the story, but I can say that I had some sort of fun watching it.  The major difference between “Wonder Woman 1984” and its predecessor was its tone and how it was reflected by the time period.  “Wonder Woman” went for the epic and grim tone for its World War I background, resulting in it being a realistic and enthralling take on the character’s origin story in my eyes.  The sequel, however, managed to “lighten things up” a bit for its 1980s background by incorporating a light-hearted, vibrant, and retro style into its plot.  The result is a nifty piece of superhero eye candy that’s endearing to look at, but a bit sour to eat.  On the one hand, it delivered an entertaining superhero sequel that has plenty of heart and a couple of easter eggs that should please a lot of Wonder Woman fans young and old.  On the other hand, it’s also a simplistic and cliched sequel that fell short of capturing the same amount of wonder as its predecessor.  Gal Gadot was able to master her role as Wonder Woman almost immediately during her first appearance in “Batman V Superman” and has been consistent with her portrayal ever since.  In “Wonder Woman 1984”, the fire within her performance was still just as luminous as ever.  Gadot’s commitment towards playing Wonder Woman is one of the best things about the character in film, and I’m glad to see that it still exists in this film.  Chris Pine also did well with his performance as Steve Trevor.  However, his character did seem to fall within the lines of Diana’s fish-out-of-water scenario from the first film from time to time.  It didn’t get to the point where it’s overly repetitive, but it did give me a strange case of deja vu.  Then you have the film’s antagonists, Maxwell Lord and Barbara (or Cheetah, according to a lot of comic book fans), and honestly, I think they were handled a bit better than Ares from the first film in terms of their character development.  While Ares is nothing but a cliche-heavy big baddie, Maxwell Lord and Barbara just happened to be villains because they fell victim to the power of wish-making.  They started out as nobodies, but then they managed to become somebodies thanks to the artifact’s ability, not knowing the price they had to pay to turn their wishes into realities.  I thought Patty Jenkins did a nice job at fixing the villain issue from its predecessor by injecting more personality into it.  Pedro Pascal, known for his role in “The Mandalorian”, delivered a lot of charisma and energy into his role as Lord, and I got to say, it was a joy to witness.  I also found Kristen Wiig to be a nice surprise as she traded her comedic side for a cheetah fur coat.  At first, I was a bit skeptical about Wiig being cast as Wonder Woman’s arch enemy, but after watching her in action, I immediately became impressed at the fact that she can play a villain just as effectively as playing a comedic character.  Her “Cheetah” form wasn’t too bad either when it comes to the CGI design, although her transformation from her human form to the Cheetah form felt rushed without any explanation as to how she transformed.  They could have at least show her transforming into a humanoid cheetah instead of showing her in human form in one scene and then suddenly show her Cheetah form in the next.  That, to me, was pretty darn lazy.  Other than that, Wiig’s performance and her character both get a thumbs up from me.  What I also liked about the film was its setting.  In addition to writing the film’s script with Geoff Johns and David Callaham, Patty Jenkins was also responsible for combining the superhero elements with the old-fashioned and colorful 1980s setting, and she did a pretty good job with both of them.  While I would like to see more of the 80s elements, it still looked nice enough to serve as a backdrop for its character-driven moments and the action sequences.  Speaking of which, the action sequences were quite entertaining to watch, but compared to the ones from “Wonder Woman”, they’re also a bit underwhelming in terms of Jenkins’s direction.  Aside from the final showdown between Diana and Barbara during the third act, the action scenes lacked the severe amount of thrills that made her previous outings so exciting in the first place.  I also had a small issue with the film’s length, which happened to be ten minutes longer than its predecessor.  With a plot that’s as simple as this, I don’t think it needed to be that long even though the character-driven scenes were nicely paced and engaging.

Overall, “Wonder Woman 1984” is another enjoyable outing for the DC Comics character and a respectable way to end off 2020 on a good note.  There were definitely some elements that I believe were handled better than the ones in the first film, such as the villains and its messages, but there were also some other elements that caused it to land face first on the ground, including the story cliches and its excessive runtime.  Despite those flaws, I had a good time watching this film thanks to its cast, Jenkins’s direction, and its enjoyable, yet sometimes flat, action scenes.  It’s not the greatest blockbuster I’ve seen this year, but it did give me hope that there’s still some light at the end of this gloomy tunnel.

“The Midnight Sky” stars George Clooney, Felicity Jones, Kyle Chandler, David Oyelowo, Tiffany Boone, and Demián Bichir.  Released in theaters on December 11, 2020, followed by a Netflix release on December 23, 2020, the film is about a scientist who attempts to make contact with the astronauts in space.

The film is directed by George Clooney, who also directed films such as “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind”, “Leatherheads”, “The Ides of March”, and “Suburbicon”.  It is based on the novel Good Morning, Midnight by Lily Brooks-Dalton.  It’s almost time for Christmas, so let’s watch something that’s a bit more post-apocalyptic.  That should put us in the holiday mood…said no one ever.  This film once again sees George Clooney pulling triple duty both on and off screen.  In addition to acting, he also produces and directs the sci-fi feature that’s more dramatic than action-packed.  When it comes to directing, Clooney has its share of hits and misses so far in his career.  He delivered a couple of award-worthy masterpieces like “Good Night, and Good Luck” and “The Ides of March”, but he also delivered a couple of recent misfires in the process, including 2017’s “Suburbicon”.  I haven’t actually seen that film myself, but from what I heard, it’s probably for the best.  In fact, I haven’t seen all of Clooney’s directorial efforts up until now, so consider this review as my first exposure to his filmmaking vision.  With that in mind, let’s see if this science fiction drama is worthy of Clooney’s directing talents.

The story follows Augustine Lofthouse (Clooney), an ambitious, yet lonely, scientist who stayed in his Arctic base after a cataclysmic event affected Earth.  Diagnosed with a terminal illness, Augustine struggles to make contact with the astronauts in space and warn them about the situation.  He found out that the remaining space craft, Æther, is still active and the astronauts inside the craft are planning on returning to Earth to report their discovery of a habitable moon right by Jupiter.  Unfortunately, the Æther crew is unaware of Earth’s current state and Augustine was unable to communicate with them due to his base’s weak antenna.  With the assistance of another survivor, a young mute girl named Iris (Caoilinn Springall), Augustine ventures through the decimated Arctic wasteland to search for another base that has a stronger signal.  As I previously stated, this film relies heavily on the dramatic side of the post-apocalyptic scenario rather than the action-heavy side, so expecting to see George Clooney fight off mutants or zombies during this time period is like expecting to get a Playstation 5 for Christmas.  It’s not going to happen.  While I don’t mind watching a science fiction film that goes “boom” or “pew pew” every few minutes (as long as it’s good), it doesn’t hurt to have a post-apocalyptic film that puts an emphasis on the character’s survival against Mother Nature instead of survival against monsters…if it’s done well, of course.  Admittedly, “The Midnight Sky” definitely had some parts that were well-intentioned, such as its themes and the ending, but everything else wasn’t exactly on par with what it’s going for, resulting in it being a middling directorial effort from the famous actor.  One of the things that happened to carry the film out of the asteroid field was the cast, most notably George Clooney who once again graced the screen with his eye-catching performance as Augustine.  As a director, he gave himself an opportunity to fully envision the internal struggle of loneliness within his character, and he was able to deliver that opportunity with ease.  Unfortunately, everything else besides that had him struggling to maintain the consistency of the narrative’s dramatic depth, especially the supporting characters, which I will get to later.  The rest of the cast also delivered some suitable performances, including Felicity Jones as Sully, one of the members of the Æther space crew, and newcomer Caoilinn Springall as Iris.  These two characters do happen to have important roles in the film in terms of its messages, and without major spoilers, the way they were handled was actually quite endearing, especially towards the end.  Another major highlight of the film was its visual effects, which looked absolutely marvelous in my eyes.  They worked extremely well in bringing some of the most gorgeous sceneries to life on screen, such as the Arctic wasteland and even space itself.  This is one of those moments where the visuals help drive the story forward, whether the latter is good or not.  I honestly won’t be surprised if this film gets nominated for an Oscar because of its awe-inspiring visual effects.  I also thought the music from Alexandre Desplat was pretty good.  Known for composing music for films like “The Grand Budapest Hotel” and “The Shape of Water”, Desplat was able to find the right type of music to fit its intended tone, which is dramatic and, at some points, grim.  It’s not the best score I’ve heard from the composer, but I appreciate his effort regardless.  As for its flaws, I did feel that again, the story fell pretty short at what it’s attempting to be when it comes to its thought-provoking and emotional core as well as Clooney’s direction.  Even though I liked the ending, the entire narrative didn’t cover all of the basics that were needed to make this type of reward 100 percent satisfying, including the characters.  Some of them have enough personalities to warrant my interest, especially Augustine, but it felt like they left out plenty of important stuff to have them feel more “three-dimensional”.  Even the astronauts themselves, save for Sully, were pretty average despite some noble efforts from the supporting cast.  I think if they put more focus on developing these characters a bit more, it would’ve made the film’s dramatic scenes just as effective as its visual presentation, but that’s just me.

Overall, despite its irresistible sense of beauty, “The Midnight Sky” isn’t as out-of-this-world as it could’ve been.  Its talented cast, its respectable themes, and its visuals are enough to make this slow-burning sci-fi drama watchable, but its execution on the characters and Clooney’s underwhelming direction prevented it from reaching for the stars.  This is another film that has some pretty interesting ideas for its concept, but wasn’t able to fully expand on them in order to make its story more invigorating and thoughtful.  If you’re still interested in seeing the film, it’s definitely worth watching for Clooney’s performance and its visual flair alone.

“Greenland” stars Gerard Butler, Morena Baccarin, Roger Dale Floyd, Scott Glenn, Andrew Bachelor, David Denman, and Hope Davis.  Released on December 18, 2020, the film has a family attempting to reach shelter when a comet threatens to destroy humanity.

The film is directed by Ric Roman Waugh, who also directed films such as “Felon”, “Snitch”, and “Angel Has Fallen”.  We never would’ve thought that a comet would actually crash-land on Earth and wipe out humanity.  Boy, were we wrong.  This next film I’ll be talking about this month sees Gerard Butler keeping his new reputation going after the success of his “Fallen” franchise.  Instead of protecting the president from terrorists, he’s protecting his family from a planet-sized space rock.  Too bad Bruce Willis isn’t here to stop it himself.  While the film was able to make it into theaters internationally, it struggled to make its big screen debut in the United States due to the pandemic.  It was originally scheduled for a summer release before it was delayed a few times and then removed from the schedule entirely.  Later on, it was announced that it will instead be a “video on demand” release, becoming the latest victim of the “theatrical to VOD” trend that was caused by theater closures.  This marks another collaboration between Gerard Butler and director Ric Roman Waugh after delivering another action-packed installment in the “Fallen” franchise together last year.  Based on my experience with that film, my anticipation towards “Greenland” was somewhere between concerning (because I thought “Angel Has Fallen” was just okay) and tempting (because I’m always in the mood for some destruction).  However, I immediately leaned towards the latter when I heard that it’s been getting some surprisingly good reviews, leading me to believe that Butler and Waugh actually improved themselves.  Now that I finally got to see it, was it really something that’s worth the $20 price tag?

The story centers on John Garrity (Butler), a structural engineer, and his family, which consists of his estranged wife Allison (Baccarin) and their diabetic son Nathan (Floyd).  They, along with millions of people, are preparing to watch the passing of a recently-discovered comet, which they nicknamed Clarke.  During that time, John realized that the military are selecting people for emergency sheltering.  It turns out that “Clarke the Giant Comet” is actually “Clarke the Giant Planet Killer”, and its multiple fragments are crash-landing on Earth instead of passing by.  As the biggest fragment in existence heads its way towards the planet, John and his family race against all odds to get to the safe haven.  Watching a disaster movie is somehow equivalent to watching a circus.  Its spectacle is quite impressive to witness, even though that’s all they’re good for.  Most of the films from this type of genre are usually known for its “visual style over substance” scenario, such as Michael Bay’s “Armageddon” and Roland Emmerich’s “2012”, which played a key part in their financial successes.  Whether it’s tsunamis, hurricanes, asteroids, or even the end of days, people will pay money to see something be torn to shreds by natural or man-made disasters, even though their stories weren’t as amazingly stunning as the visuals.  However, some of them did manage to succeed because of their focus on both the disaster element and the human element, including Peter Berg’s “Deepwater Horizon” back in 2016.  So, where does “Greenland” land in my eyes in terms of these two types of disaster films?  Well, it just so happens that, like the comet, it crash-landed on the “enjoyable disaster film” section.  That’s right, everyone, we actually got ourselves a good mid-budget comet-destroys-Earth film.  A good mid-budget comet-destroys-Earth film starring Gerard Butler, to be exact.  Rather than focusing on showing off its effects-heavy destruction onscreen, the film placed most of its focus on the human drama during this impending predicament, especially how their actions are affected by mass hysteria, while the fiery devastation of the planet serves as a backdrop for its plot.  It’s a pretty noticeable risk considering the fact that a lot of people are only seeing these types of films for the chaos, but thanks to Chris Sparling’s script and Waugh’s confidence behind the camera, that risk paid off quite well as it lead to a satisfying reward: An entertaining disaster film with actual depth.  The story is obviously about a family’s quest for survival, but it is also about a husband who attempts to protect his loved ones despite the mistakes he made in the past.  This showcases the fact that the love and support for others is the only tool we need to survive, which I think is something that we really need right now, especially during this time.  There wasn’t anything too special about its storytelling, mostly because of its genre cliches, but it had enough tension in its scenario and enough heart in its characters to compensate, which is largely due to its decent cast, most notably Gerard Butler and Morena Baccarin.  Butler stepped out of his action hero phase to deliver a surprisingly solid performance as John, while Baccarin from the “Deadpool” films made a suitable effort in portraying Allison, even though it’s far from her best performance.  Scott Glenn also turned in a respectable performance as Allison’s father Dale despite his small amount of screen time, so if you’re a fan of the actor’s previous roles, here you go.  I also thought that the destruction elements in the background were pretty impressive in terms of the visual effects and the lighting during a couple of scenes.  The visuals weren’t exactly groundbreaking, but for a film that costs only $35 million to make, they’re actually not that bad either.  The film did happen to have a couple of familiar elements that were from Roland Emmerich’s “2012” in my eyes, such as the estranged relationship between the husband and the wife and the people attempting to get to the safe haven with everybody else.  While the elements in “2012” were bogged down by its generic story and its excessive runtime, “Greenland” managed to showcase them better by making them as realistic as possible and providing a story that’s actually worth caring about.  So I applaud Ric Roman Waugh for not following in the footsteps of Emmerich.

Overall, “Greenland” has enough explosive flair and heart to rise above the generic films from the disaster genre.  Its script has its share of familiar elements that kept it from being a masterpiece, but it was able to survive its impending doom thanks to its cast, Waugh’s direction, and its thrilling sequences.  It’s an entertaining, yet simple, disaster film that should satisfy plenty of fans of the genre and maybe some other people that are outside of its target audience.  It’s available to rent on demand for around $20 as of this writing, but if you’re not the type of person who wants to spend that kind of money, feel free to wait until it’s free to watch on television or on a streaming service.  Otherwise, it’s money well spent.