Nadie 2

Loved the first movie; it was unexpectedly great. This one was just mediocre. The action and fight scenes were pretty good and fun to watch. The story line could have been better, but the absolutely terrible acting from Sharon Stone, in all honesty, completely ruined the entire movie for me. I'm not sure if they were looking for a surprise big name for this role, but they completely missed the mark on casting.

Review: Nobody 2 -

"Nobody 2" proves that not every movie needs a sequel. Instead of building on the stylish brutality and dark humor that made the original such a sleeper hit, this follow-up plays like a near shot-for-shot remake with only the locations swapped out.

In the first Nobody, the standout sequence was the bus fight - gritty, messy, and brilliantly choreographed. In Nobody 2, we get the exact same setup... except it's on a boat. The problem is that the novelty is gone. Every moment that once felt raw and unpredictable now comes across as a tired retread.

It doesn't stop there. The story beats are almost identical: a "reluctant" Hutch gets pulled back into violence, family tension is sprinkled in for emotional weight (but with no real depth), and the villains feel like reheated leftovers of the Russian mobsters from round one. Even the soundtrack cues and one-liners are recycled to the point of déjà vu.

The worst part is that the movie never tries to expand Hutch's character or explore new territory. Instead, it clings to what worked before and dilutes it. The result is a sequel that feels more like a fan-made parody than a legitimate continuation.

If you loved the first film, watching Nobody 2 might leave you with the same thought I had walking out: I could've just rewatched the original and saved myself the disappointment.

⭐5 out of 10 - a lifeless, copycat sequel that brings nothing new to the table.

Feels a lot more like a routine sequel - bigger, louder, and packed with more brutal villains, action, and explosions, but with only an okay plot. The stakes never feel as gripping as they could be, and the comedy lands just fine but nothing more. Strong family vibes throughout, but the story is fairly predictable. Still a fun ride, just not as fresh as the first.

I rated Nobody 2 6/10 stars, while I rated Nobody 10/10 stars. The sequel is based on a false premise: That he has to go back to being a Spec Ops agent to repay $30M debt to Russian mafia that he burned in Nobody. At the end of the first film, he and his family were free and clear, buying a new house with a new identity. Being able to establish a new identity is one of Hitch's "special set of skills." Hutch (Odenkirk) is no longer a reluctant hero. He walks back into fights that he could have walked away from. That breaks his promise to his wife and family that he's not longer a fierce operator, rather just a father and family man again.

The violence is now more cartoonish than realistic. Hutch is no longer a vulnerable Everyman. Now he's an indestructible superhero who seeks out payback. That completely changes the viewer's perception of him as a sympathetic character. Now he's a vengeful man seeking to repay even the slightest offense. The booby traps he sets in the grand finale at a theme park, seem more from the Home Alone playbook, than from an experienced operator's tactics. Overall, the sequel doesn't live up to the original and we're voting for no Nobody 3. 🙁

I just got back from seeing it at the theaters

The movie, overall, matches the original, which is a big accomplishment for a sequel: the original will always have the distinction of being the first, and with this particular premise, a huge hindrance is that he can't really be a Nobody twice. Part 1 could build up the moment where the audience and supporting characters find out who he is, but the franchise can't replicate that plot device in sequels. By Part 2, he's a Somebody.

Still, though, the movie surpasses the original in 2 areas. Firstly, I think that the comedy in Part 2 surpasses the comedy in Part 1. There were numerous instances in Part 2 that legitimately had me laughing, and I'm not easy to please on comedy (e.g. I found the 2025 Naked Gun movie to be unfunny). To say what parts had me laughing might ruin those parts, so I won't say. Secondly, I think that Sharon Stone makes a better, more memorable antagonist than the Russian guy in Part 1.

The movie's other positives are basically the same positives that apply to Part 1. Bob Odenkirk is a likable and charming protagonist. Though his role as Saul Goodman is iconic, you don't actually see Saul Goodman when you watch him in this movie; he occupies this role entirely. The movie blends the slick, intense action scenes with hilarious comedy in a way that neither clashes with the other or creates awkwardness. The compact 90-minute runtime is perfect. And I like Christopher Lloyd. We don't know how many more big-screen movies he'll appear in, so we should cherish them

In terms of flaws - the movie has a predictable plot; nothing here is really original or creative. And I don't imagine that many people, after watching, will remember this movie in the long-run. The movie builds up Sharon Stone's character, yet the protagonists take her out relatively easily. There are some cliches. There are some elements recycled from the first film

I gave the original a 6.5/10. I'll give this one the same score

6.5/10.