If you enjoyed “Smile,” the sequel will make you “Smile 2”

The gleeful trauma-eating-entity has returned in the second chapter of writer/director Parker Finn’s “Smile” franchise.  But will this sequel be more of the same, or expand into a bigger story?

Starting six days after the end of the last film, “Smile 2” opens with Joel (Kyle Gallner) desperately looking for a way to pass the entity on before it takes his life.  Before the title screen, we’re treated to a brilliant, tense, long-take sequence that sets the tone for the rest of the movie.  Immediately after the thrilling introduction, the story jumps to pop-music superstar Skye Riley (Naomi Scott).   A year prior, she was in a drug-fueled auto accident that took the life of her boyfriend Paul (Ray Nicholson), and left her permanently scarred, both physically and mentally.  Skye appears on the Drew Barrymore show to discuss her comeback tour and to announce that she has been sober following the accident.  On camera, she appears strong and inspirational, but behind the scenes, she is falling apart.  The epitome of “put on a happy face,” Skye suffers from frequent back pain, has nightmares of the accident, and still craves the drugs she has given up.

It’s on a quick trip to acquire some prescription painkillers where she encounters the entity.  After witnessing a grotesque suicide, she becomes possessed by the parasitic demon, and her reality begins to crumble.  Strangers stare at her with unsettling smiles.  She occasionally sees her dead boyfriend.  It seems like everyone is out to sabotage her, from her dance team to her personal assistant.  Like the first film, “Smile 2” is a masterclass in the “Unreliable Narrator.”  Just because we see something doesn’t mean it is accurate or real, as the story unfolds entirely from Skye’s perspective.  The entity’s goal is to feed off as much trauma as possible from its victim.  To do this, it creates false realities to increase the trauma and keep its host distracted.  What’s fascinating is how Parker Finn is accomplishing the same thing with the audience.  He knows we know that not everything is real, so the trick is to distract us with various horror tropes.  Foreshadowing is usually a clue or warning, but in “Smile 2,” he brilliantly often uses it as a red herring.

This story is told best with a small cast.  Fear becomes more pronounced when the central character is alone, or has no one they can trust, especially when they can’t trust themselves.  I was worried that by moving the story to a famous pop star it would lose its effectiveness.  But often, famous people are the most lonely of all.  How many times have we seen incredible public people, who seemed generally happy on the outside, take their own lives?

“Smile 2” takes what worked in the first film and improves on it.  It doesn’t outgrow its own narrative.  It creates characters we want to root for and forces us to watch them painfully fall apart.  The sound design is as haunting as ever, again weaving jarring sounds into its musical score.  The camera work is even more engaging, with a few impressive long-takes, and frequent sweeping POV shots, firmly seating us in the characters’ private hell.  And like its predecessor, the jump-scares are some of the best in the genre!  After seeing countless scary movies, it’s very rare a jump scare catches me off guard.  Both these films have achieved that.

The only real downside to “Smile 2” is that it doesn’t grow the lore at all.  It could be argued that this is a good thing, as over-explaining a villain usually makes them less scary.  But without some unique growth, this franchise could become a formulaic “suicide of the week.”  The end of the film is clearly setting up a third entry, so it’ll be interesting to see where Parker Finn takes us next.