“Smile 2” starts six days after the ending of “Smile,” opening on a character from the first film, Joel, who now has the curse. The opening scene is shot like one continuous take, immersing the audience into Joel’s perspective in a fantastic sequence. However, after the opening scene concludes and the title appears, the film never reaches the same heights of suspense until the end of the film. But it is still fun.
The film then introduces the audience to Skye Riley, played wonderfully by Naomi Scott, who is days away from the opening of her comeback tour. Just like the first film, “Smile 2” explores trauma and the problems that can occur by not treating mental health issues correctly. Skye’s comeback tour is due to her previous drug addiction and a car crash that killed her boyfriend.
While most horror aficionados nowadays scoff at jump scares, director Parker Finn is able to create scenes that ambushed almost everyone in the theater. He uses these moments effectively and sparingly to keep them fresh. He creates a sense of dread and fear, especially since, just like Skye, the audience does not know if what is happening is real.
A sequence in an apartment involving a stalker and one involving a backup dancer stand out as disturbing scares that are memorable for more than just their blood and gore. Finn is also able to include comedy throughout, which at first seems out of place, but works really well.
The film’s acting is superb, especially Naomi Scott’s performance. While some people might know her from the 2019 “Aladdin” remake, most Gen-Zers will remember her from the Disney Channel original movie “Lemonade Mouth.” Both films demonstrate Scott’s acting and musical talent. In fact, throughout the film, the audience is able to hear in-world music from Skye Riley, which is quite good.
The final positive for the film is the ending. While a bit predictable, it was still a wild way to end the film. The reveal — and the way Finn decided to shoot the ending — was a highlight of the movie. Even though the ending is essentially a reverse shot, the moments that the camera lingered were effective. The ending of the film will either leave audiences laughing or completely shocked.
Whenever a film utilizes a rotating camera or showcases the world reflected on the x-axis, it is meant to show how the world is going into disarray and highlight that problems are about to occur. A great example of this can be found in “Midsommar,” when the main characters are driving to the Swedish community of the Hårga. This camera movement showcases to the viewers that essentially the world is flipping and what is wrong may not be considered wrong anymore.
When used sparingly, it can be useful and effective. However, in “Smile 2,” the camera rotation is used constantly and loses its charm and appeal. Instead of being a novel shot, it is used after almost every sequence and becomes annoying. It is similar to when directors overuse the Dutch/Canted angle. Both shots are meant to disorient the viewer and create a sense of uneasiness, but overusing them can feel tacky and unoriginal.
The movie’s score is another problem. Recently, horror movies have started to use loud and eerie music, making them all sound similar. If one were to swap the “Smile 2” score with one from another horror movie, viewers would barely notice a difference. A film’s score can help with the storytelling and make the film memorable and original, making this a missed opportunity.
By the end of the film, viewers are left wondering how much of the film actually happened and how much was just the demon confusing Riley. The original film did not use as much time and reality manipulation as the second, making the film disorienting. Many scenes turn out to simply be dreams, a lazy plot device that feels more like a cop-out than a twist.
Overall, “Smile 2” is a decent and crowd-pleasing horror film. If viewers want horror and a bit of gore without reaching “Terrifier 3” levels of grossness, it definitely is a fun matinee watch with a group of friends.