Lukas Gage

Smile 2 (2024): Parker Finn Returns to Deliver One of My Most Pleasant Surprises in 2024 Cinema

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Smile 2” is directed by Parker Finn, who also directed the first “Smile,” starring Sosie Bacon. This sequel stars Naomi Scott (Power Rangers, Aladdin) as a singer by the name Skye Riley. Joining Scott is a cast including Rosemarie DeWitt (La La Land, Poltergeist), Lukas Gage (Love, Victor, You), Miles Gutierrez-Riley (Agatha All Along, The Wilds), Peter Jacobson (House, Colony), Ray Nicholson (Out of the Blue, Panic), Dylan Gelula (Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, Dream Scenario), Raúl Castillo (Cold Weather, Looking), and Kyle Gallner (A Nightmare on Elm Street, Jennifer’s Body). This film is about a global pop star who experiences strange events while she promotes her tour.

If you have followed Scene Before for the past couple years, you would know that I have been thrilled with the horror genre lately, particularly in 2022. In that year you had one solid horror film after another. “The Black Phone,” “Barbarian,” “X,” “Pearl,” “Nope,” and of course, “Smile.” The last of these films is the feature-length debut from Parker Finn, and it was, deservedly, a huge success at the box office for Paramount. “Smile” even made my top 10 of the year. So naturally I HAD to be excited for the sequel right?

Ehh…

I love “Smile,” but it was a film I thought would be better off as a one and done. Do not get me wrong, I love the concept of “Smile,” and I was at least slightly intrigued to see another take on it. I did not see this sequel coming. Thankfully, Parker Finn is back, and he clearly knew what he was doing the first time around. He created a film that made me feel uneasy, terrified, and riveted. But if you are going to get someone to expand this universe, it might as well be an individual who knows it well. Though name recognition is not good enough. I hope Finn had a solid idea up his sleeve and was not just coming back to slap something together for a quick buck.

Thankfully, I am proud to say that this sequel lives up to the original. There are parts of this movie that I would even say are an improvement from the original. While I was more intrigued by the story of the first film, maybe due to the concept feeling fresh, I found the lead for “Smile 2” to leap off the screen more. Both in terms of her character, and her performance.

“Smile 2” is led by Naomi Scott, who I have not seen in a ton of projects. I know she is particularly famous for her appearance in the 2019 Disney “Aladdin” remake. I have not seen that film. Although I do like her based on what I saw her in leading up to this picture. I thought Scott was a good actress before seeing “Smile 2,” but I had no idea what exactly she was capable of until watching this film. Scott is given a lot to do between channeling a neverending sense of fear, singing, trying to convince others she is not going berserk. I bought into her entire performance. I will also give some credit to the costuming and makeup departments. Scott plays a pop star, and those two departments do a great job at transforming Scott into an artist admired by a sea of fans.

I have not seen the first “Smile” since the theater. I want to watch it again at some point. It could be fun to do a double feature of these films back to back. But kind of like the first film, once it gets to the ending, that is where “Smile 2” becomes as unhinged as it possibly can. This film might not exactly contain my favorite ending of the year. But I could not imagine a more fitting outcome of the story if I tried. Going back to the original “Smile,” I cannot say I remember everything that happens in that film’s climax. Though I will not deny that whatever did happen, made my skin crawl like you would not believe. It is not to say that the rest of the film was not scary. But I specifically remember the feeling I had watching parts of the climax. I felt an equally noticeable sense of discomfort watching the entirety of “Smile 2.” I was scared not just because of what loomed over our protagonist from a supernatural perspective, but also from a pure sanity standpoint. This film to a certain degree repeats concepts from the original in addition to other horror movies, but even these familiar elements feel as if they are done to their maximum potential.

Also with “Smile 2” being a sequel, it follows a cliche that many sequels tend to carry with them, that is to go bigger than its predecessor. I sometimes cite this as a negative in my reviews because while the scope expands, the quality of the story does not. Therefore, bigger does not always mean better. But I felt that the added scope of this film made for a more immersive and better production than the original. The film cost $28 million to make, up from its predecessor’s $17 million. Both budgets are not necessarily high, but the crew behind “Smile 2” clearly threw more money at the screen to give something more visually appealing than what was given in the first “Smile.” The sets feel more grand. The color palette is glossier. Even the look of our main character played by Naomi Scott has more pizzazz. Granted, she is a pop star, so she would require more elaborate outfits and makeup than the original’s lead, Sosie Bacon, who played a therapist.

Though if I have one negative-ish thing to say about the film, it is that it often comes off as a commercial. It is not shot like a commercial. It very much has the look and feel of a movie. But we get numerous glimpses of Paramount Global’s assets in order to further the story including a CBS news network and “The Drew Barrymore Show.” Have you ever watched a Sony movie and noticed them trying to promote their phones? TVs? Headsets? PlayStations? That is kind of what this feels like. In fact, some would even say that this shameless self-promotion is not even the biggest piece of commercialism in the film. It stood out to me, probably because I have a good amount of experience with mass media. But some would even say that Voss Water plays an even bigger role in “Smile 2” in terms of product placement. This did not bother me in particular. If anything, I thought anytime our main protagonist drank water in the movie, those moments properly encapsulated what she was feeling in specific scenes. Did this movie make me want Voss Water? Not really. So as for the effectiveness of this commercial, maybe it will work better for other people. I sound like a Negative Nancy, but if you want me to be real, the product placement here, while noticeable, is not as obnoxious as “Madame Web.”

“Smile 2” has something in common with another sequel from this year, “Inside Out 2.” These are movies that I thought had phenomenal first outings, but I was rather nervous when I found out they were getting sequels. I did not think a follow-up would be as good or worthwhile. I did not find a sequel to be all that necessary compared to other properties out there. But both sequels surprised me and stuck the landing. I think “Smile 2” is more consistent in quality with its predecessor whereas “Inside Out 2” is a noticeable step down, but still a pretty good flick. Another thing these movies have in common… I would not mind seeing a third one. I would especially be happy if Parker Finn comes back to do a threequel, though if someone else has a fresh idea up their sleeve, I would not be opposed to checking it out. But this second film is worth watching. It is not my favorite horror movie of the year. I think “A Quiet Place: Day One” is slightly better when it comes to characterization and overall engagement. But this is a huge win for the franchise, for Parker Finn, and for Paramount. I would love to see more of this property if possible.

In the end, it is safe to say, if you like the first “Smile” movie, chances are you will enjoy the second one. If you are not a fan of the first “Smile” movie, then maybe skip this sequel. I am going back and forth as to which movie I like more. I have to give the first film a lot of credit because it took a clever, crazy idea and turned it into an equally clever, crazy movie. Though I think this second film ups the scares, ups the insanity, ups the acting, and ups the production value. That said, I do think the first film’s story is slightly more engaging, as much as I like the main character and concept of this film as well. Despite how often this movie made me wince, I am definitely all smiles talking about it now. I am going to give “Smile 2” an 8/10.

“Smile 2” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD. As of this writing the film is available to all Paramount+ and MGM+ subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Nightbitch,” “Kraven the Hunter,” and “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Smile 2?” What did you think about it? Or, which of the “Smile” movies puts a bigger grin on your face? The original? Or the sequel? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

How to Blow Up a Pipeline (2022): A Young, Admirable Ensemble Carries This Environment-Centric Feature

Posted on by Jack Drees

“How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is directed by Daniel Goldhaber and stars Ariela Barer (Runaways, Atypical), Kristine Froseth (Looking for Alaska, The Society), Lukas Gage (The White Lotus, Euphoria), Forrest Goodluck (The Republic of Sarah, The Revenant), Sasha Lane (Utopia, Loki), Jayme Lawson (Farewell Amor, The Batman), Marcus Scribner (Black-ish, She-Ra and the Princesses of Power), Jake Weary (Animal Kingdom, Fred: The Movie), and Irene Bedard (Pocahontas, The Mist). This film centers around several environmental activists as they band together to, as the title suggests, blow up a pipeline.

Some of you reading this review may be hearing about this movie for the first time today. I ended up watching this movie for a few reasons. First, the trailer was really good. It had a certain flair to it that individualized the project. Second, to some degree, I care about the environment. I cannot pretend I am perfect, but I try to do my part when it comes to preserving it. Third, the release period seemed limited. It was playing at select theaters with minimal times available. In fact I did a search for showtimes in my area, and found out “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” currently is not playing anywhere near me. It is available to watch at home, but still. I am glad I saw this movie when I did. In a time where I recognize climate change, the world being on fire, and needing to take care of my surroundings more than ever, I thought this movie could be, at least, an important watch. Now that I have seen it, would I recommend it?

After some thought, I would say that question requires an extended debate.

It has been a couple weeks since I watched “How to Blow Up a Pipeline.” I wish I could have gotten this review out earlier but between other movie reviews being in the… You know, pipeline… And other things in life getting in the way, I have waited until now to talk about it. That said, I do not remember everything I saw in this movie. This is a simple movie. This is also on the shorter side. But if I were asked to give any of the characters’ names or their backstories, I would need to do a Google search. This also speaks to something that stood out to me in the movie as I watched it. The best thing about “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is the chemistry between everyone in the ensemble. While I do not think the individual characters are that memorable, they come off as a well-oiled machine (sorry) when they work together.

To all of the environmentalists out there, I would like to make it clear that I did not necessarily enjoy “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” because of what it says about how we treat our planet. Instead, if I were to give a surface level summary of my experience, I enjoyed the movie because of the characters and how this film’s story effectively highlights the characters’ issues. The shared motivation of the main characters made me ask some perhaps much needed questions. I will get to those later. Yes, the movie heavily involves an oil pipeline, which as a singular concept, is a controversial topic regarding the future of this planet. But as the movie goes on, we see how it affects ordinary people. Granted, this is a work of fiction. But as I watched the movie, it felt raw. I not only felt connected with the main ensemble that were trying to blow up the pipeline, but the supporting characters that have to deal with the pipeline’s effects.

If I did not make myself clear already, I am not a climate change denier. I try to recycle as much as possible. I want good public transportation and I try to utilize it as much as I can. I own a car, but when I bought it, I avoided leaning towards an SUV or truck because of their effects on the environment. Naturally, if this movie was designed to change my mind on the oil industry or my views on environmental preservation, it will not. If anything, one can argue that I might be predisposed to this movie because of my views. But I think this is an important film, even if it is not my favorite I have seen recently. I think as we transition ourselves and evolve, this is something I will think about on one occasion or another. I am glad this movie this movie was made, not just because I was entertained with the journey the characters go through, but why said journey was taking place.

I can see certain people watching this movie and not siding with these characters. That said, movies like this go to show that everyone believes they are the hero of their own story. I have seen movies where I think the protagonist is a buffoon, I do not know how I could ever side with them. Specifically, Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Licorice Pizza.” But part of that has to do with my values and when this character is presented to be as moronic as he is, not once did I get a sense that this moron was charismatic or the least bit justified for his behavior. “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is a hard sell based on its low budget and not exactly star-studded cast, although they have been in some popular television programs. Another season it is a hard sell is because it picks a side, not to mention a side that is likely to trigger some people. It did not trigger me, but I am not everyone else.

The movie begs to justify destroying things for the sake of sending a message. That is a tough question that I honestly do not know how to answer. Because history has shown that destruction of property or similar acts can be effective in sending a message and bringing change. Look at the Boston Tea Party. But is it worth the trouble? Is it worth the consequences? Not only do we see the oil pipeline destruction motivation play out, but this same message through destruction is being delivered from the very first scene. The first minute of the movie features one of the main characters slashing the tire of a gas guzzler car, while also posting a flyer as to why they did it. That is something that I also have mixed feelings on. It is definitely less harmful in more ways than one, but I do not know if the person on the receiving end is either going to change their mind or react fondly. Sure, destroying things can bring attention. But how far do you go to support a point? It is a question worth asking, but it is hard to say if it is worth answering.

“How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is something I probably would not have watched unless I was doing Scene Before. That said, I do not have any regrets. As a character story, this is captivating. As a thriller, it is intriguing. As an overall movie, it was worth the watch. Is this movie going to open anyone’s minds? It is a possibility. Because even though it is a work of fiction, it tends to base itself within the confines of an issue that feels real. And it is an issue that is likely to only become heavier depending on where we go as a society. The film is not playing in many theaters right now, including the ones near me. And while I cannot give “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” a glowing recommendation, I can say it is superior to many of the movies I have reviewed in recent months, especially the more popular titles everyone is giving their money to.

In the end, “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” was thought-provoking. It was a bit of a surprise because part of me did not know what to expect going in. This is not a project I would watch at home on a Friday night. But it is also a project that I am glad I saw this one time on a Friday night where I had nothing else going on. If you are looking to be entertained, you might get that out of this movie. But I left the film feeling more invested in questioning the deeper meaning behind the characters’ actions more than anything else. Despite the film not being my favorite of the year, I hope it is one that is brought up in conversations throughout the years to come. I am going to give “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” a 7/10.

“How to Blow Up a Pipeline” is now playing in select theatres and is available to buy or rent on digital services.

Thanks for reading this review! Pretty soon I am going to have reviews for “Sisu” and “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.” Stay tuned! Also, for those of you who have followed me for some time, I want to address the status of my “Super Mario Bros.” 1993 review. I am working on it. Unfortunately, due to other movies coming out and time constraints, I have no official date as to when the review will be released. Maybe when the 2023 adaptation releases physically. I do not know. If I have an update, I will give one. But for now, that review is being put on hold. Hope you understand. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “How to Blow Up a Pipeline?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie with an ecocentric message that you enjoyed? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!