Just as the original did, Nobody 2 starts off by establishing Hutch's current domestic situation. Only this time it doesn't need to play coy about Hutch being a dangerous man, hitting us with some violent yet playful action right from the start. And that's pretty much how the rest of the movie plays out: it echoes the beats of the original, only this time we already know who Hutch is so there's no real question about what to expect, no sense of discovery as we learn what Hutch is capable of or what makes him tick. Which was, to me at least, a big part of what made the original fun.
That's not to say that Nobody 2 isn't fun though, as I did enjoy it for the most part. It's funny, I liked and cared about the characters, and the action was entertaining while still being fairly brutal. I definitely felt Hutch's frustrations and was cheering for him when he stood up for himself. I would even say that I liked his character arc and the way he interacts with his family more than I did in the first one.
Unfortunately there were things that I thought weren't as good this time around. While I liked how the plot explored Hutch's relationship to his family, past and present, the "action movie" parts of the story felt a little forced, and (mild spoiler perhaps) were wrapped up a little too quickly and conveniently by the end. But more importantly, the action itself just wasn't as good. While it was still entertaining, I did find it less impactful; it felt more slapstick, and overall just less competently executed. Which is a problem since this is really an action movie first and foremost.
I also felt the climax of the action was very disappointing, though I'll talk more about that later. The end of the movie itself wasn't bad, wrapping up on a satisfying note, it was just a little undermined by the way the action didn't really deliver at the end.
Bob Odenkirk is still entertaining and relateable, though I felt like he wasn't handling the action scenes as well as he did last time. Christopher Lloyd seemed to be enjoying himself peppering the film with little moments of humor. Connie Nielson, John Ortiz, and Gage Munroe all did good work. Colin Hanks was surprisingly great as the self-important sheriff. Sharon Stone looked like she was having a ball, playing Lendina as this over-the-top, larger-than-life villain. It was cool seeing Daniel Bernhardt as a more menacing villain; funnily enough I thought I recognized him in the first movie but wasn't sure, seeing him here reminded me to verify that it was indeed him in the first one. It entertains me to see him play two different roles, like Bruce Campbell in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy.
For me Nobody 2 earns a 7/10: it's a step down from the first movie, but still a good time.
The movie opens up the same way as the original, with Hutch in a police interrogation. But it didn't really do much for me the second time; there's no mystery about him anymore, and just retracing the same footsteps feels uninspired. Similarly he once again gets into a fight with a bunch of guys on public transport, tries to negotiate a peace treaty and ends up burning piles of dirty money, then finally has a big shootout on a booby-trapped home ground alongside his father and brother. I don't know why they felt the need to hit the same beats as the original. It was all fine, but none of it really worked as well as the first time. Partly at least it's just because it wasn't as fresh.
In my review of the first film I mentioned it's a little concerning that by the end of the movie his life was made better by embracing violence. Well, this time they acknowledge that when you get used to solving problems with violence, it becomes too easy to resort to it, and that that's a problem. Like how he sees that he's teaching his son the wrong lessions. They might not have explored the idea all that deeply, but I still think this was a big thematic improvement over the last film.
OK, let's call a spade a spade. At the end of the first Nobody, Hutch kills the big bad boss himself after a big shootout with all the villain's goons. This time? After he takes out all the heavily armed and armoured goons, the big bad boss lady sends her two femme-fatale bodyguards, wielding blunt sticks, at Hutch. And he goes down without even putting up a real fight. Then he's completely unable to move a single finger for the next ten minutes and has to be saved by his wife. Can you see the pattern here? The common denominator of the groups who are helpless in this scene, and the ones who aren't?
I will mention that the big bad boss lady also had a male bodyguard, but he was off getting killed by Hutch's brother. Hutch's brother who was protecting the children instead of fighting alongside Hutch the way he did in the original scene in the first movie. Which is weird, right? Why was the brother protecting the children at the safe location that the villains shouldn't have known about (and that it's NOT explained HOW they know about), while Hutch's wife - who was originally at the lodge with the children and who you would assume would prioritise the safety OF HER CHILDREN - was at the park? And how did she just walk up without running into any of the goons - which it turns out a moment later are still there? Like, that's very forced, right? It's also pretty convenient that Hutch was just casually walking around unarmed at this point.
Look, I'm glad that they had the wife do something this time around. That's a really good thing, really. But Hutch just getting his behind handed to him? And then being completely unable to move after taking a few body shots from a couple of sticks? Do you even remember the cover of the first movie? Hutch can take a beating and keep on ticking, that's kind of his thing. But this one specific time he's just completely helpless? In a way that is completely at odds to how he's been portrayed for the entirety of this movie and the last?
If the final boss and her bodyguards hadn't all been women, if they had all been me, then this ending would still have been very frustrating because it was so poorly handled. He just suddenly had no fight in him. Honestly. I would have complained that it was poorly written if the whole scene was just men. But the actual scene that we got? You cannot tell me there wasn't some feminist manifesto nonsense happening here.
I mean, Hutch is acting pretty whipped all movie. He never stands up to his wife. I get that he really loves her, and he knows that he's put her through a lot, perhaps he's even scared of hurting her because of how his whole life is about hurting people. But still, his relationship is not healthy. He's not in an equal partnership, as relationships should be. It's OK to have them argue, it's OK to have him stand up for himself. But he never does. And it's a shame, because the rest of the movie is pretty entertaining, but it kinda ends on this sour note.
The dog is behind bars because it's wild? Then Hutch frees it, and it responds by saving his life and then attacking (and somehow defeating I assume) a group of trained and heavily armed men? Was this all just so that they could put the dog in the interrogation scene at the start? I dunno, the last shootout just felt rushed - like how they just come out of nowhere say "oh, there's a lodge here that where we think his family is hiding" with no explanation of how they knew about it. Maybe the production ran into issues or something, I dunno.
I feel like he should have been able to avoid losing that finger. And it's weird that NO-ONE AT ALL commented on his missing finger. It was like nobody thought it was important? Like, losing a body part is kind of a big deal, even just the tip of your pinkie. I dunno, it didn't seem necessary and didn't feel like it added anything to me. On the contrary, the fact that he lost a finger to these four losers was the first step of making Hutch feel like less of a big deal, less of a tough guy, less of a dangerous man. Eh, whatever.
