Nadie 2

Why did we love the first movie?

It had a cool and mysterious hero. It was realistic, a little dark, and a little funny. There weren't many movies like the first one; it was almost unique.

This sequel, however, is a rather ordinary movie reminiscent of the 90s comedy-action films we've seen countless times before. Thanks to its 90-minute runtime, you won't get bored while watching it and you might even find some moments amusing. But that's all there is to it... This second movie offers nothing but empty and simplistic action scenes.

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.

Bob Odenkirk does not get enough love when it comes to roles outside of Saul Goodman. This man is the writer of the famous Matt Foley SNL sketch so of course he can do funny. I watched the first Nobody just for fun back when it came out, plus I wanted to go through Bob's filmography. My hubby and I enjoyed it. We like action and we don't take movies too seriously. We just like to be entertained. And Bob always does this.

We just went and saw the sequel and we were entertained again. I personally couldn't stand watching Sharon Stone as that bat-crazy idiot of a boss. Now, I loved her back in the day (I was a teen in the 90s) and I love seeing women in strong roles, but she was just annoying. Saying the F bomb every sentence didn't make her look tough. It made her look like she was TRYING to be tough and that's a big difference. She just couldn't act.

Colin Hanks was disappointing as well. I thought he was a better actor than that, too, but oh well.

I liked everything else and I'm ready for Becca's back story because she held it down, too.

Can't wait to see what Bob will do next!

Timo Tjahjanto's Nobody 2 is a relentless, bone-crunching sequel that doubles down on the first film's blend of suburban angst and bloody mayhem. This time, Bob Odenkirk's Hutch Mansell is on vacation, which of course becomes a backdrop for an insane series of creatively staged, over-the-top fight sequences. Tjahjanto, known for his work on action films like The Night Comes for Us, brings a distinct, stylized flair to the violence, turning the tranquil setting of a small town and an amusement park into a series of deadly playgrounds. The plot is thin and largely exists to string together these incredible set pieces, but that's not a criticism-the movie knows exactly what it is. It's a joyful, unpretentious action romp. The action is more outlandish and even more graphic than the original, with a dark, cartoonish sense of humor that differentiates it from the more grounded, noirish tone of the first film.

Some critics have noted that the sequel loses some of the original's gritty charm in favor of a more comedic, outlandish style, but praise the film for being an entertaining and satisfying follow-up.

Is it worth watching? If you're a fan of the first film and are looking for a fun, fast-paced action movie that doesn't take itself too seriously, then absolutely.

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.