More stories

  • in

    In ‘Smile 2’ and ‘Trap,’ Pop Stardom Looks Pretty Terrifying

    At a time when the business of being Taylor Swift or Beyoncé is booming, these films examine toxic fandom and what can seem like mass hysteria.This article contains spoilers.Last year around this time, audiences were heading to movie theaters to experience the joy of being in the presence of a pop star.“Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour” had just been released, prompting Swifties and the Swift-curious to descend on multiplexes, friendship bracelets adorning their wrists. Weeks later, the Beyhive would don silver cowboy hats for the release of “Renaissance: A Film By Beyoncé.” Attending one of these concert films meant having a great time and reveling in the glory of the women onstage who seemed to be doing the same.Now being a pop star at the movies looks a lot more terrifying.Horror centered on pop stars is all the rage these days. In M. Night Shyamalan’s “Trap,” released in August, the concert by the fictional Lady Raven (Saleka) is an elaborate setup to nab a serial killer (Josh Hartnett). This weekend, “Smile 2,” directed by Parker Finn, follows Skye Riley (Naomi Scott), a troubled Grammy winner with a history of addiction who comes to be possessed by a demon that drives her mad with violent hallucinations. To her fans and her team, it looks like she’s on another, possibly drug-induced spiral, but really a monster is goading her into killing herself.Both these movies are a product of a time when the business of being a pop star is bigger than ever. Events like the Eras and Renaissance tours became zeitgeist-defining moments as well as fodder that filmmakers could mine for inspiration. Shyamalan was even direct about it in an Empire interview. His premise for “Trap”? “What if ‘The Silence of the Lambs’ happened at a Taylor Swift concert?”Saleka as a pop star whose concert is a setup to nab a serial killer in “Trap.” Warner Bros. PicturesBut both “Trap” and “Smile 2” prove that beyond the fun of the setup, the life of a pop star is actually thematically ripe for horror. It’s a high-pressure job in which you never know whether you’re meeting a fan or a predator.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    ‘Smile 2’ Review: A Bigger and Bloodier Spotlight

    In this sequel, the pop sensation Skye Riley (Naomi Scott) is preparing to begin her comeback tour a year after a brutal car accident.If ordinary women often feel pressured to smile, then imagine how a pop star feels about constantly needing to project poise and affability? This emotional high-wire act is enough to make anyone crumble, even without a malevolent monster preying on her fears and traumas.This is how “Smile 2,” a bigger, bloodier — and more compelling — sequel to “Smile” (2022), raises the stakes: Instead of a humble psychiatrist (played by Sosie Bacon in the original), we get the pop sensation Skye Riley (a splendid Naomi Scott), now sober and preparing to begin her comeback tour a year after a brutal car accident triggered a public meltdown.The curse hasn’t changed: its carriers still undergo spectacular mental breakdowns and kill themselves soon after they see someone else die. There’s no convincing others that these mental collapses are actually caused by an evil entity that warps its victims’ brains — changing their perception of time and reality, and provoking hallucinations of people with creepy smiles — because, well, that’s crazy talk.“Smile” got a lot out of this tension. There may be a gruesome being pulling the ropes, but the battle is still an internal one spiked with paranoia and self-revulsion. The film’s visual flair and sinister conceit were enough to make me ignore its generic trauma angle.“Smile 2,” directed by Parker Finn, is more thematically ambitious than the original, which also allows Finn to stage more satisfyingly ridiculous kills and ramp up its air of delirium. The film addresses ideas about addiction and dependency, stardom and solitude and the loss of control that comes with being chained to your job.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More