Smile 2 (2024)

The critic deems it a superior sequel that ups the horror stakes, volume, and creativity with a pop-star setting, delivering bigger jump scares, elaborate delusions, and bloodier body horror. It singles out Naomi Scott's no-vanity, hysterical lead performance as a breakout that carries the film's mix of sincerity, humor, and wild thrills.

The review calls it a skillfully disquieting sequel that creates a genuine emotional center by truly being about a pop star's mental breakdown under fame and personal demons. It praises Naomi Scott's skilled, sympathetic performance while noting the film wrings honest jolts from the unreality of pop stardom until a somewhat extended and grandiose ending.

The sequel expands the premise with a pop-star protagonist and celebrity satire but feels like a retread that doesn't surpass the original's tension. It delivers effective scares and a strong lead performance yet lacks surprise and momentum over its long runtime.

Parker Finn follows up his 2022 smash with a suitably silly sequel in which a pop star becomes the latest victim of the grinning demon. The film delivers gross-out kills and violent jump scares but feels like a rehash for much of its runtime.

Smile 2 offers more of the same with a powerhouse performance from Naomi Scott as the pop star battling the demonic entity. It features stylish art direction, an off-kilter score and weapons-grade jump scares.

The supernatural chiller bares its teeth at Gen Z celebrity culture through the story of a pop sensation targeted by the curse. It offers an interesting meditation on fame but suffers from a bloated runtime and clunky pacing.

The critic praises the core idea equating a pop star's public life with supernatural horror as metaphorically potent. It ultimately over-relies on cheap jump scares, repetitive fake-outs, and excess, losing emotional engagement and scuttling its ambitions.

The sequel to the 2022 horror hit lacks the crucial element of surprise as it follows a pop superstar plagued by terrifying visions. It delivers chills and sly commentary early on but succumbs to trite horror tropes and elicits shrugs rather than terror.

The glossier follow-up to the 2022 curse horror is well-made and well-acted but the franchise struggles to carve out its own identity. It repurposes the setup around a pop star but relies too much on narrative trickery and feels like an over-extended march without enough distinctive voice.

The critic calls it a near-perfect sequel for its intensity and one-upmanship, with strong practical effects, framing, and performances. It deepens the series' themes of trauma, addiction, and mental health struggles through a fame-centric story.

The critic finds it a fun, well-acted horror sequel with effective scares, strong visuals, and sound design. However, it sacrifices restraint and the original's subtlety for excess, spectacle, and a less gripping protagonist.

The critic finds the sequel bigger, bloodier, and more compelling than the original, raising stakes by centering on a pop star's pressures instead of a psychiatrist. It singles out Naomi Scott's splendid performance and the film's thematic ambition around addiction, stardom, and control.

The critic highlights it as a rare sequel that's better in every way—bigger, scarier, funnier, smarter—thanks to Parker Finn's confident direction, focus on the pop star character, inventive scares, humor, and thematic depth around addiction.

The critic praises it as an exceptional sequel that improves on the original with better scale, scares, humor, and a standout performance by Naomi Scott, though noting it could explore the entity more and relies on jump scares.

The review calls the sequel funnier and scarier than the first film with a playful streak that makes it feel like an evolution. New jump scares and the gleeful way it manipulates the audience and hero are singled out for praise.

The sequel is a relentless, bigger and meaner non-stop spookshow with a sensational lead performance from Naomi Scott and an effective ending that makes up for flaws like excessive length and overused tricks such as predictable jumpscares and upside-down camera shots.

The review calls it a middling re-run of the original that lacks freshness, borrows from other films, and is rarely scary, though it maintains suspense and knows how to twist the knife. Naomi Scott’s committed performance as the flawed pop-star heroine is highlighted as a positive.

The critic finds the sequel follows the original template too closely and feels bloated at over two hours. Effective jump scares are noted but the film gets bogged down in the lead character's personal struggles.

The critic finds the sequel bigger but flatter overall, with exhausting in-your-face visuals and a shallow, unlikeable pop-star protagonist that leaves viewers resenting her instead of sympathizing. Some effective horror sequences and gory deaths are singled out for praise amid the missteps.

The film largely repeats the beats and scares of the first movie with a bigger budget and more gore, but delivers strong jolts and an entertaining, unsettling experience thanks to Naomi Scott's committed performance as the pop star protagonist.