LOS ANGELES — Parker Finn’s filmmaking career blew up in 2022 with the release of “Smile,” a breakout horror hit for Paramount Pictures about a woman plagued by a sinister entity that makes its victims see people grinning horrifically at them everywhere they go. Originally slated for streaming, it ended up grossing $217 million at the global box office.
With the follow-up, “Smile 2,” Finn showed he hasn’t lost whatever made the first one infect audiences’ minds with dread. In fact, the sequel considerably broadens the scope of the original by focusing on an international pop superstar (played by Naomi Scott) who gets hit with the demonic smiling apparitions while trying to mount a massive comeback tour after a horrible tragedy.
This sequel introduced a far more ambitious idea. But the success of the first earned Finn “a healthy dose of trust from the studio going into the sequel,” he said in a Monday interview. Although the filmmakers had a larger budget, they still worked on a relatively modest scale, as is common in horror filmmaking. “It was still all about, ‘How do we fit this 10-gallon movie into a five-gallon bucket?’” he said.
The $28 million film debuted at No. 1 with $23 million in ticket sales from the U.S. and Canada. This essentially matched the $22.6 million launch of the original. It’s a strong result for the studio, considering that horror sequels typically don’t open as high as their predecessors. According to David A. Gross’s FranchiseRe newsletter, second movies in horror series on average open 26% lower than the first. Audiences responded positively, giving it a “B” CinemaScore, a solid rating for horror films.
“What I’m trying to do is tell really involved character stories that you hopefully can’t help but be taken over by, sort of Trojan horsing these deeply human psychological stories into these commercial, frightening fun-houses,” Finn said. “And I think that people end up connecting with the movies more than they might be expecting.”
The success of “Smile 2” is a reminder of why scary movies have been one of Hollywood’s most reliably lucrative genres. They typically don’t cost that much to make, and they have a loyal audience eager to be freaked out in theaters, giving filmmakers considerable freedom to experiment with new ideas. This also gives studios the freedom to take chances on untested creative voices.
But there’s no guarantee that any given horror film will work commercially. In fact, the bar has been raised due to the glut of horror films being released. It’s hard to create a horror franchise that lasts, like Warner Bros.’s “The Conjuring” universe or Paramount’s “A Quiet Place” saga.
“There has to be a really sound conceptual underpinning to the mythology of a horror movie in order to make it work,” said Mike Ireland, co-head of Paramount’s motion picture group. “As long as that idea exists, you can then use it as the scaffolding to hang a lot of scares and incredible character work. But all that falls down without that fundamental concept that helps bolster everything.”
This year hasn’t had many huge horror hits from the studios, which could be partly due to production delays from 2023’s strikes. “The First Omen” from 20th Century Studios/Disney did modest business, despite positive reviews. Fede Alvarez’s “Alien: Romulus” and Michael Sarnoski’s “A Quiet Place: Day One” also performed well. Blumhouse and Universal Pictures’ “Speak No Evil” had a solid run given its small budget.
Next year’s lineup, though, is stacked with franchise selections such as “The Conjuring: Last Rites,” “The Black Phone 2,” “28 Years Later,” “M3gan 2.0” and “ Five Nights at Freddy’s 2.”
“If you look across the release calendar for the next couple of years, it’s pretty crowded and I think the only way to cut through is with filmmaking that exists at a higher level,” Ireland said. “Oftentimes horror is conflated with something that’s disposable. It cannot be disposable. You have to treat it like you would treat any other genre and support it in the same way.”
This year, indie efforts have helped to pick up the slack. Neon’s “ Longlegs,” from filmmaker Osgood Perkins, surprised with $108 million worldwide. Meanwhile, “Terrifier 3,” the latest entry in Damien Leone’s grisly, low-budget Art the Clown franchise, has grossed $36 million domestically — a huge win for the small distributor Cineverse.
A handful of small, acclaimed, independent productions have kept horror viewers busy looking for hidden gems, even if they didn’t light the box office aflame. “Late Night with the Devil,” for example, stars David Dastmalchian as a variety show host whose quest for ratings goes horribly wrong, while JT Mollner’s “Strange Darling” offers a wild twist on the serial killer genre. Both films take familiar narratives (demonic possession, spree killing) and offer fresh spins.
“The pleasure of the genre is the audience having mastery over convention,” said Steven Schneider, a producer on both “Late Night With the Devil” and “Strange Darling.” “But in horror, it’s also about surprising the audience and breaking away from convention. That means you get to be really risky.”
In other words, the sweet spot is giving audiences a story they think they’re familiar with (for example, something strange in the basement), but then taking it in unexpected directions (e.g., “Barbarian”).
Anyone who watches “Smile 2” will see how the world could expand in future iterations. Apart from the “Smile” series, Finn is also working on a remake of “Possession,” the 1981 cult film that follows the dissolution of a relationship through the lens of a paranoid thriller and hellish supernatural body horror.
“I want to make films that scare the hell out of me to even approach,” Finn said. “I can’t really say that much about ‘Possession,’ other than the fact that I’m extremely excited about it. But that movie scares me. There is a small but hardcore, loyal fan base of that original film. And I know they’re gonna be a very tough crowd to win over. My goal is to win them over while also creating something that feels like an event.”
