I went into the theater with little to no expectations for “Smile 2.” 2022’s “Smile” was interesting, but ultimately very familiar and not high on my list. I admit I was taken aback. It was good.

I am shocked that I enjoyed it at all, let alone that I enjoyed it more than the original. Sequels being better than the originals happens, but not terribly often. It’s not unheard of. “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” is arguably better than “Captain America.” The same goes for “Desperado,” vs “El Mariachi,” and, I can’t leave out “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” as being the best of its franchise. Of course, when we are inundated with sequels from top studios, the chances for good ones  rises. This year alone, all of the top grossing movies are sequels and 70 percent of movies planned for release from top studios in 2025 are sequels.

This sequel is the brainchild of Parker Finn, who wrote and directed both movies. To say they are his babies is a bit of an understatement. “Smile” was his directorial debut and was well-received as it grossed over $217 million worldwide on a budget of $17 million. “Smile 2” is just as promising, even though the franchise is a foray into the already familiar genre of chain-possession horror films. Notable titles include: “The Ring,” “It Follows,” “The Grudge,” and “Fallen.” Most of these movies came out while Finn was in middle school and high school, and likely played a big part in shaping his decisions, but it’s his style that sets his movies apart.

“Smile” and “Smile 2” opt for a more psychological approach, diving deeper into its protagonist’s mind. It’s a different beast, but one that still offers plenty of thrills. At the center of “Smile 2” is Skye Riley, played by Naomi Scott. She’s a pop star haunted by past trauma, addiction, and now a demonic entity.

Scott brings vulnerability and strength to the role, balanced by the absurdity that surrounds this singer’s life. The film does well portraying the emotional and psychological toll fame takes, but admittedly there is some disconnect. When the main protagonist is a rich and famous popstar, her character loses relatability. Finn leans into this.

Instead of making her humble and forcing the audience to empathize, the absurdity and strangeness of everything is ratcheted up to 11. What’s real and what’s fantasy is blurred, confused. She is taunted at every turn by ever-present smiling faces.

Finn weaves disorienting sequences into the narrative, making it difficult to tell when Skye is experiencing the real world or when she’s lost in a nightmare. There are several standout moments where Skye’s backup dancers transform into grotesque, nightmarish versions of themselves. It showcases Finn’s talent for unsettling imagery that doesn’t need traditional horror tropes. The mix of dialogue, imagery and absurdity smacks of campy horror greats like “Evil Dead II,” “Scream,” and “The Cabin the Woods.”

It’s not all good. Like many horror films, “Smile 2” relies heavily on jumpscares. They have their place, but honestly they are a cheap tactic. Often jumpscares mask poor writing. “Smile 2” is at least interesting and the writing is decent, but it is not scary per se. You find yourself torn between laughing at purposefully preposterous and cringe-worthy dialogue and reeling from ghastly carnage. No one can say this film shies away from grim depictions of death. There is plenty of hack and slash action. The writing is good, the pacing is good, but for fear … the movie has to rely on jumpscares.

“Smile 2” is a direct sequel that stands distinctly from its predecessor, and that’s good. For fans, it’s a worthy follow-up. For everyone else, I’d say you could watch it without watching the original … if the start of the film wasn’t so directly tied to the end of “Smile.” Unfortunately, jumping into this movie will have the uninitiated scratching their heads without context. If you like a little camp with your gore, it’s an 8/10.