Leaving the theater smiling – not because this sequel delivered the spooks and screams we hoped for, but because it had everyone laughing through the last 10 minutes. For a horror film, that’s not a sign of success. For fans of the original “Smile,” we encourage you to stop there, enjoy the first film for what it was, and just pretend this film never happened.
Hayley here – I’m all for a good horror film that relies on jump scares and thrills, as long as it’s advertised as such. However, if I’m given a film that calls itself a horror mystery, it better deliver on plot and storytelling. “Smile 2,” simply did not. The movie starts strong, building a world full of thrills and leaving the audience on their toes and hiding behind their popcorn bags. But as the film drags on for an additional hour and 20 minutes, it loses steam, as does its audience.
Instead of allowing the plot to be its driving force, the film relies on gore, confusion and unsettling sounds to keep viewers curious about how it might end. The timing of events and the way information unfolds felt poorly executed, making the movie feel clunky, as if it were a sequence of ideas haphazardly stitched together. I’m left wondering if the intention was to make us feel how Skye, played by Naomi Scott, was feeling or if their storytelling skills simply fell short.
The only redeeming feature was Scott’s incredible acting and the film’s ability to pair uncomfortable sound effects with its brutal visuals. We just wish her performance didn’t need to be paired with a cluttered plotline, allowing her talent to shine beyond the gimmicks and cheap scares this movie relied on.
Turning it over to Francine– I’ll admit, I fell for all the jumpscares. For someone who generally avoids scary movies, the film’s sound design and visual shocks certainly did their job! However, even as a self-proclaimed scaredy-cat, I couldn’t overlook how weak the storyline was. While there were moments that sparked intrigue, the overall execution was lacking.
The supporting cast was another miss in this film’s direction. Characters like Morris, the “Smile” curse researcher, and Paul, Skye’s haunting boyfriend from her traumatic past, had the potential to add depth to the narrative but were left unexplored, making it hard for viewers to invest in their fates and learn more about Skye’s background.
Additionally, the film’s reliance on cliches made it feel like it was just checking boxes rather than creating something unique. As a result, the jump scares eventually became predictable, diminishing any tension it attempted to create. The final act, which should have delivered the biggest scares, instead felt like a disorganized rush to the finish line. It left me with more questions than answers– not in a way that piqued my curiosity for a potential third installment. Truthfully, this sequel felt like a setup for an entire “Smile” movie universe, similar to the expansions we’ve seen with “The Purge” franchise.
While “Smile 2” had the potential to be an interesting horror movie to watch this Halloween, it ultimately fell flat. Scott’s stellar performance and the unsettling sound design were the only redeeming components in a film that stumbled through its own narrative. Unfortunately, this film didn’t quite earn the smile it aimed for, leaving it with a disappointing two out of five stars for us.