Smile 2 (2024) review – Fame, Trauma, And More Of The Same Grin-Heavy Horror
Smile 2: Quick Verdict
The Verdict: A high-octane and visually impressive sequel that successfully weaponises the pressures of fame to deliver a more intense, if slightly familiar, horror experience. Smile 2 thrives on a sensational, career-defining performance by Naomi Scott, who portrays Skye Riley’s mental collapse with visceral conviction. While the film relies heavily on jump scares and recycles much of its predecessor’s narrative blueprint without offering much new lore, the pop-star setting allows for some creative and unsettling set pieces. It is a loud, occasionally messy, but undeniably entertaining follow-up that proves there is still plenty of life left in this grin-heavy franchise. A solid 3.7-star watch that cements its place as a modern horror mainstay.
Details: Director: Parker Finn | Cast: Naomi Scott, Rosemarie DeWitt, Lukas Gage | Runtime: 2h 7m | Release Date: 2024
Best for: Fans of the first Smile, viewers who enjoy “descent into madness” psychological thrillers, and anyone who appreciates a powerhouse lead performance.
Worth noting: The film’s elaborate dance sequences were choreographed to reflect Skye’s fractured mental state, adding a unique rhythmic layer to the tension.
Where to Watch: Amazon Prime Video (Rent/Buy)🛒, Apple TV, Sky Store
Rating: 3.7/5 Stars
(Powerhouse performance, creative kills, slightly repetitive formula)
Welcome to Knockout Horror. Today we are checking out another brand-new release – Smile 2. We reviewed the first Smile movie in preparation for this one just a few months ago. To be perfectly honest, I was surprised by just how much I enjoyed it.
Table of Contents
It’s more of the same
To be perfectly honest, Smile 2 is just more of the same. How much you will enjoy it depends, very much, on your enjoyment of the first movie. This time the story follows pop star Skye Riley (Naomi Scott). After being involved in a horrific crash that claimed the life of her boyfriend, potentially caused by the pair being intoxicated, Skye is hitting the touring circuit in hopes of making a comeback. Still riddled with pain from her back injury, she has developed an addiction to painkillers, leading her to witness the maniacal smiling suicide of her pill supplier.
Obviously, Skye replaces Rose from the first movie in the role of “person afflicted with the strange Smile curse” and the movie basically repeats the events of the first one. With Skye suffering an increasingly rapid descent into madness as she sees terrifying people smiling at her and experiences bizarre events. It’s a formula that has proved to work in the past and works again here.
An interesting approach
Skye’s decline is similar to that of Rose from the first movie. Only the fact that she is a world-famous pop star offers up a bunch of possibilities for some very unique scares.
“The trappings of fame keep her constantly surrounded by a group of increasingly demanding people, only adding to her feelings of confusion and fear.”
We see Skye experiencing horrible visions at dance rehearsals. She encounters strange people smiling wildly at her at autograph signings. And the trappings of fame keep her constantly surrounded by a group of increasingly demanding people, only adding to her feelings of confusion and fear.
It works pretty well. Skye’s chaotic life only adds to the rapid descent and her past history of drug abuse offers people around her an excuse to not believe her. Everyone thinks she is using again and nobody trusts a word she says. Skye is completely alone despite being surrounded by people. It makes for a rather stark difference from the first movie.
Skye’s stardom offers up some great moments of creativity, as well. Particularly one such scene where she is tasked with giving a speech at a benefit dinner. There are a lot of possibilities here and director Parker Finn taps into a whole bunch of them. The two-hour runtime is a big ask but enough happens to avoid too much lag in the later parts.
Feels a bit repetitive
I found it a bit hard to shake the feeling of repetition here. This really is more of the same. In fact, it feels like a complete recycling of the first movie and Smile 2 does very little to progress the narrative of the curse itself. We don’t learn anything new, no significant characters are introduced linked to the story, and little is done to build on the overarching narrative. This is one more squeeze of the Voss water bottle to see whether we can get another drink out of it. The ending sets up a sequel that I am really hoping will do something a bit different and push things forward a little.
With this in mind, the movie is wildly predictable. I called the entire events of the story in my Smile 2 Trailer Review a few months ago and you would have to be blind not to see what’s coming. Finn attempts to subvert expectation with some, frankly, ridiculous manipulation of time, narrative, and continuity. But it all ends up winding back around to the most obvious and probable outcome. Something which really disappointed me because I was pleasantly surprised when I thought my prediction might have been completely wrong.
Tons of jump scares
This is a very jump scare heavy movie. More so than its predecessor, in fact. Loud noises are used to keep the viewer off base and blatantly projected scares are thrown out ad-nauseam. It’s something of a shame because Smile 2 is much more effective when it is simply being unsettling and a bit sinister. Less is more applies here in a big way.
There’s a lot of critical hyperbole surrounding this movie which is fairly normal with big releases. Smile 2 will definitely make you jump on a couple of occasions, if you are that way inclined. With that being said, it is hardly the scariest movie of the year.
“It is more of the same but with a more interesting setup and a brilliant lead performance. If you enjoyed the first one, you will enjoy this one too.”
I did love some of the body horror elements, though. Breaking bones and peeling skin make for brilliant visuals that will definitely have you wincing a bit. There is some very bad CGI here; one particular example later on is truly awful. It’s something I am really sick of seeing.
A sensational performance
Naomi Scott is absolutely fantastic as Skye. One of the best horror performances in a long time, in fact. She is completely committed to her performance and nails the “starlet with a rough past” character to perfection.
“Naomi Scott is absolutely fantastic as Skye. One of the best horror performances in a long time… She is completely committed and nails the ‘starlet with a rough past’ character to perfection.”
Emotion, anger, fear, confusion; everything is entirely believable. She does such a good job with each different part of Skye’s character. You never once believe that she isn’t seeing these awful things for real. Scott is completely convincing when the horror hits and things start to go a bit crazy, as well. Awesome stuff! Everyone else is about what you would expect.
Strong direction but a few issues
Direction is decent. Some of the scares are set up very well and I really enjoyed some of the shots. There are a number of nods to cinema of years past. There’s even an unmistakable vibe of Polanski and Hitchcock coming through at numerous points. There’s sort of a timeless vibe to the picture that stands out in certain scenes. Smile 2 feels like it will age very well, much better than most modern horror, in fact.
Pacing can be an issue, especially early on. The movie really struggles to get going. Then is in something of a race to finish once the last 30 minutes or so hit. It traps its feet on scenes of dance rehearsals and onstage performances that add nothing. Twenty minutes, at least, could have been shaved off with no great loss.
I didn’t really appreciate the messy narrative and the playing around with continuity towards the end. I understand it is to illustrate Skye’s mental decline but it feels a bit cheap and low effort. Subverting expectation is one thing but to present the viewer with one reality only to pull the rug out from underneath them and cycle back to another with little explanation is a bit weak.
The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
The Good
- Naomi Scott: A sensational turn. Scott carries every scene, delivering a performance that is both emotionally taxing and physically demanding.
- Atmospheric Setting: The world of a pop star provides a unique playground for psychological horror, blending the artificiality of fame with a raw sense of isolation.
- Body Horror: The practical effects and visceral bone-breaking moments are expertly handled, providing some genuinely wince-inducing visuals.
The Bad
- Repetitive Formula: The movie recycles the structure of the first film almost exactly, failing to progress the narrative of the curse in any meaningful way.
- Overlong Runtime: At over two hours, the film suffers from pacing issues, with several redundant scenes that could have been trimmed.
- Poor CGI: While the practical effects are great, a few instances of digital work, especially toward the end, look notably out of place.
The Ugly: The Manipulative Continuity. The film’s tendency to play fast and loose with reality in the final act can feel like a bit of a cheap rug-pull for the viewer.
Should You Watch Smile 2?
Yes, it’s a 3.7-star horror experience that successfully builds on the first movie’s tension. It’s a loud, bloody, and well-acted adventure that proves Parker Finn knows exactly how to get a reaction out of his audience.
You might also like:
- The Sitter (2017) Review – A Pointless and Exploitative English Mess
- Hallow Road (2025) review – A road trip into trauma and boredom
- Cuckoo (2024) Review – A Watchable but Messy Exercise In Indie-Style Pretentiousness
- Outback Nightmares – 20 Australian Horror Movies You Must See
- Cobweb (2023) Review – An Atmospheric Tale Trapped Between Two Styles
Our Scoring Philosophy: A Fair Fight
Horror is a genre that thrives thanks to indie film makers and low budget creators. At Knockout Horror, we firmly believe that every movie that we review deserves a fair fight. That's why we grade on a curve. Our star ratings are all about context, judging a film on what it achieves with the resources it has.
A 4-star rating for a scrappy indie horror made for $10,000 is a testament to its ingenuity and raw power. A 4-star rating for a $100 million blockbuster means it delivered on its epic promises. We don't compare them side-by-side; we celebrate success in every weight class, from the back-alley brawler to the heavyweight champion. Please keep this in mind when considering star ratings.
Support the Site Knockout Horror is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. Basically, if you click a link to rent or buy a movie, we may earn a tiny commission at no extra cost to you. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. This helps keep the lights on and the nightmares coming. Don't worry, we will never recommend a movie purely to generate clicks. If it's bad, we will tell you.
Disclaimer: Images, posters, and video stills used in this review are the property of their respective copyright holders. They are included here for the purposes of commentary, criticism, and review under fair use. Knockout Horror makes no claim of ownership and encourages readers to support the official release of all films discussed.
