New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Kim Hollis: Sinister 2, the sequel to the 2012 Blumhouse horror film, earned $10.5 million this weekend. What do you think of this result?

Ryan Kyle: This is a pretty poor result given that the usual trend for horror sequels is to pop bigger when they open and then drop off faster. The original was well-received and the marketing was everywhere; however, the reviews killed this one, as it was seen as an inferior product. There hasn't been a horror flick for quite some time so there should have been a market hungry for this. Late August is also a usually good time for horror films as The Final Destination, Halloween 2 (Rob Zombie's version), The Last Exorcism, and The Possession all found audiences. Made for peanuts, if this was an original property I'd chalk this up as a win, but being a sequel opening to almost less than half of the original, I'd say this is a loss for Focus who apparently acquired the property somewhere along the way from Lionsgate/Summit, who released the original. There will likely be a Sinister 3; however, I'd expect it to go straight-to-VOD.

Ben Gruchow: Ahh, but Ryan, your examples are flawed. All of those movies were PG-13 and relatively gore-free, and...wait. Wait a sec...Okay, so they were 75% R-rated and 50% very gory. But they also all had highly bankable talent in front of the camera. I mean, Scout-Taylor Compton and Mykelti Williamson alone are - OK, wait. But none of those had such a mercenary-sounding and obligatory title or...log-line. Whatever. This happened because reasons.

This actually does make a good amount of sense to me as an opening, and reminds me of a slightly rosier spin on what happened back in 2012 when Silent Hill: Revelation came out. Sinister did well, but A) I don't think anyone was really asking for a sequel to it, and the movie's ending didn't point explicitly at one, and B) three years is an eternity for horror-movie series. Also, C) the sequel sucked. I quite liked the first Sinister, and I only had an initial glimmer of interest in the sequel that lasted approximately as long as it took to see the directorial reins handed over to a first-timer and virtually no character connection to the first film. The 12% Rotten Tomatoes score was really just reinforcement.

Felix Quinonez: It might be a bit disappointing but it should be just fine. The fact that it already matched its budget in its opening weekend pretty much guarantees that the movie will make a profit. If not in theaters, then definitely in the home video market. Because these movies are relatively cheap to make they have a low bar to cross in order to be considered a win. And I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Sinister 3.

Matthew Huntley: When I saw the numbers for Sinister 2's opening weekend, it made me realize there's a trend with recent horror sequels, from The Woman in Black 2 to Insidious Chapter 3: they are all under-performing, at least compared to their originals and most analysts' expectations. The reason for this, I think, is not just the poor reviews (that's never stopped audiences before), but rather the lack of variety and originality. I wasn't a huge fan of the first Sinister, but at least it was the first in the franchise, and Sinister 2 just simply seemed like more of the same. Whether that's true, I'll have to wait and see, but if it is, this may have been the mass's excuse for not paying for it. It's a simple case of "been there, done that."

Continued:       1       2