Nobody 2.

Review #2411: Nobody 2.

Cast: 

Bob Odenkirk (Hutch Mansell), Connie Nielsen (Becca Mansell), John Ortiz (Wyatt Martin), Colin Hanks (Abel), RZA (Harry Mansell), Christopher Lloyd (David Mansell), Sharon Stone (Lendina), Colin Salmon (The Barber), Gage Munroe (Brady Mansell), Paisley Cadorath (Sammy Mansell), Daniel Bernhardt (Kartoush), and Lucius Hoyos (Max Martin) Directed by Timo Tjahjanto.

Review: 

You might remember that Nobody (2021) was a bit of a delight in what one could call an "addiction drama about a man whose addiction is violence." Derek Kolstad wrote the script for that movie, and it probably is a good omen that he returns to write the script (having sole credit for the story and co-writing the screenplay with Aaron Rabin). Sure, maybe the punchline at the end of the day was that an action hero was being inhabited by Bob Odenkirk, but it was a pretty neat movie in both showing someone who did look the part for an action movie and had fun with it (and, apparently, the training regimen done for that movie probably saved his life when he had a heart issue in 2021). The movie is directed by Timo Tjahjanto, a West German-born Indonesian filmmaker making his American debut after five movies made in his native Indonesia. For the most part, a good deal of the cast from the first film reprise their roles for this film.

The movie might be on vacation a bit, but at least it does have some entertainment value for the most basic of requirements. On the average scale of action movies, it probably would be in the middle between the 2025 slate of Novocaine and Ballerina, and it certainly wouldn't top the first Nobody, but being an average sequel is not a bad thing. Instead of trying to cope with the idea of just being a dull family man, we now have a guy who just kicks ass and thinks he can simply just ride that wave for a while that really can't just have a break. I guess one's nature makes things inevitable for someone who just allows things to get nuts. Do I expect more from certain action movies? Eh....not really. In fact, sometimes an action movie beat could resemble the horror movie in where I play generous because God only knows what would happen if either genre was at the mercy of streaming.* Odenkirk is still pretty game to carry the proceedings with worthwhile believability that can look and sound the part of an asskicker (to an extent) while having the troubles that come with someone who just can't resist scratching the proverbial itch. Nielsen is relatively fine in the same way that one is accepting of a dark cloud gathering because they are clearly ready with an umbrella in hand, I suppose. Stone is actually pretty neat as the routine villain, minus the fact that one could do with most (all?) of the lines stating how scary she is meant to be (ooh, she'll kill your bloodline if you cross her, what's next, she'll clone you to kill you again?), because she just has that basic instinctual touch to seem unnerving enough already. You get a smidge of time with others that are mostly "hey, that's nice" or "sure", so there's that. The action sequences are generally satisfying in the staging that mostly keeps things fresh, as signified with having a duck boat involved to go with a few chuckles in the lingering absurdity that comes with a vacation area becoming the most evident staging area for mayhem. The ending is, well, surely a bit too familiar, mainly because it thrives on conveniences for nearly too much of its 89 minutes (the last movie also started and ended in the same place, naturally) and I'm not entirely sure this is a movie that needs a follow up to feel whole. As a whole, Nobody 2 is a casual trek through the proverbial woods of movie-shuffling, one that achieves most of what it sets out to do in vacation-based action beats. I don't really know if there is a profound desire for a third of these movies, but I can always endorse a decent time with an action movie when it seems necessary to do so, so there's that, I suppose.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Arguably, you have stuff happen to people in action movies that would fit right in for horror movies, such as say, a dart to the eye.

King Kong (2005).

Review #1540: King Kong.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Ann Darrow), Jack Black (Carl Denham), Adrien Brody (Jack Driscoll), Thomas Kretschmann (Captain Englehorn), Colin Hanks (Preston), Jamie Bell (Jimmy), with Andy Serkis (Motion capture of Kong / Lumpy), Fred Tatasciore (Vocal sound of Kong), Evan Parke (Benjamin "Ben" Hayes), Kyle Chandler (Bruce Baxter), John Sumner (Herb), Lobo Chan (Choy), and Craig Hall (Mike) Directed by Peter Jackson (#1486 - Bad Taste and #1507 - Heavenly Creatures)

Review: 

"No film has captivated my imagination more than King Kong (1933). I'm making movies today because I saw this film when I was 9 years old. It has been my sustained dream to reinterpret this classic story for a new age."

I don't know if you needed to hear another description of King Kong (1933), but most probably know it as a great classic, one that has tremendous stature as an adventure in its revolutionary effects for the time (done in stop-motion and miniatures by Willis O'Brien and his crew) that can still hold its own in entertainment after over 80 years since its release. Granted, not every aspect of the film has exactly aged gracefully (with the occasional wooden actor or so), but it definitely stands true in the ace of films that came in subsequent years involving its titular gorilla. Its sequel (Son of Kong, released the same year!) was a rush job that did not capture the magic of what made things special from before. King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962), while fairly decent in entertainment, is a hodgepodge of ideas that benefits its latter monster in every which way (particularly with its effects) as a Toho film (I haven't see their other production in King Kong Escapes, which is a co-production with Rankin/Bass of all things). The 1976 remake of the film was described by me as a "jumbled flow of effects and 70's style filmmaking that can be hit or miss", which translates to just not being good enough (Jackson described it as a disappointment as a kid and later called it "kind of kitsch"). I suppose it only makes sense that if someone wanted to make another King Kong film, it would have to be something really intriguing for a big effects director to make on a big budget and big scope. Jackson called the 1933 film his favorite, and he had been offered the chance to do a remake by Universal Pictures that would've been released in 1998, but worries by the studio over the upcoming releases of Godzilla (1998) and Mighty Joe Young (1998) led to them stalling by 1997, with Jackson going on to do work on adapting The Lord of the Rings to film. The success of those films led to Universal approaching Jackson to do the film he wanted, with a budget that would reach over $200 million by the time it was released, with Jackson co-writing the effort with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens.

Why don't I first start with the stuff easiest to highlight. I do applaud the idea of keeping the film in the 1930s, mostly because we are talking about a film needing a reason to go to a strange island to do a movie and find a big gorilla - it would seem a bit clunky to do that in 2005 as opposed to 1933, I assert. There is great care done here to make a worthy period piece in the costumes and feel that I appreciate more than if it was just a monster film lost in itself, particularly since it fooled me a bit with its digital effect enough to make not make fun of it as a bluescreen-fest. Kong himself is a tremendous accomplishment, as they have captured a great effect that towers well over everything present. The advent of these effects and having gorilla footage to study means that Serkis accomplishes wonders in a motion capture body suit that goes with Tatasciore in vocals to make a useful curiosity. Watts handles the challenge of spending a majority of time with Kong with resilience and charm that make for an interesting 1-2 act that makes a special bond with Kong that doesn't seem forced or ridiculous. Black (weird wig and all) is generally enjoyable, seeming to have a grasp on the manner of Orson Welles with some of the drive and compelling spirit of a carnival barker that doesn't seem too much of a cheesy bit. Of the others, I would say probably Chandler has it best, mostly because he seems to be having fun playing a ham without doing a wink to the audience. 

Ultimately, it seems Jackson wanted to have his cake and eat it too in every minuet detail, considering the run-time of 187 minutes. It becomes a case of excess overriding an epic that can only go so far for enjoyment before bashing you over the head with what is believed to be needed in a remake. It seems more prescient in keeping a mix of wooden acting with fair acting than it does in making a period piece I actually want to see play all the way out for three hours (which can be extended 20 minutes longer in an extended cut if you are into that). The easiest thing to get out of the way immediately is one shining fact: Nobody, and I repeat, nobody, needs a whole thing about the backgrounds of the ship crew going to Skull Island, because very little people will actually care about it. The performances for these folks are...okay, but do I need a scene of someone discussing reading Heart of Darkness? How about details of someone being a World War I veteran? Cannon fodder-I mean creature fodder doesn't need this much time, because I am here to watch a gorilla and some creatures along with some sort of affinity between gorilla and woman, thank you very much. Of course the true offender in all of this is Brody, who easily hands in a bland performance without even having to reach the gorilla, and it is so baffling to see him present in a film that begs for some sort of charisma or interest from him when trying to act with Watts. By the time the film trudges onto the island and delivers some creatures to us, one is just begging to not have to hear from most of these folks ever again. One can appreciate the nuance of seeing vine action between creatures that we know aren't really real as opposed to having to pretend to care about a conversation about bravery or the dealings of the ship - Somehow, I remember Kong: Skull Island handling all of this significantly better twelve years later. If I don't think about the fluid quality of acting and see Kong, it works out only to the point of making an average film because of its obvious length. I almost wonder what would happen if you made a film just set on the island with no buildup on the ship and go from there (I shudder to think about a line-for-line remake of the 1933 film, although this takes lines from that film). But at least the climax back to New York works itself out in being interesting and capturing the spirit of tragedy when it comes to gorilla-on-plane action, wonderful in its execution that gives Watts and Serkis their moment to do what is needed (and keeping Brody chucked to the short-shrift where he belongs) before that repeated line to close out this film as was done before comes up. On the whole, I liked most of what I saw in the parts that matter to make a film worthy enough for a recommendation, even if its test of scope and patience may prove frustrating for others. Jackson wanted his tribute to the original mean something, and when compared to films that came following from that model, I'd say he made a commendable effort worth some credit in innovation. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.