How 5 Recent Horror Films Scared Up Big Success At The Box Office

Features
by Drew Taylor
August 22, 2013 2:40 PM
3 Comments
  • |

"The Conjuring"
Budget: $20 million
Gross: $194 million (worldwide, so far)
What's It About: Based on a supposedly true story, "The Conjuring" concerns a family in rural New England (led by Lili Taylor and Ron Livingston) who are terrorized nightly by phantasmagorical visitations. Eventually they enlist the Warrens (Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson), a married team of paranormal researchers who assess the supernatural activity and offer their professional advice on how to proceed. Lots of spooky shit ensues. 
Why Did It Succeed? First and foremost, it's really, truly scary, full of palpable dread and scares that are earned, not cheated. (It got an R-rating for its scariness alone, since it's a virtually bloodless affair, almost entirely free of any sex or profanity.) What makes this elegantly told haunted house chiller even more shocking is the fact that it was directed by James Wan, whose "Saw" helped reignite the craze of hyper-violent horror movies dubbed "torture porn" by many (although, comparatively, the first "Saw" is pretty light on that stuff). It was a subtle, atmospheric piece of entertainment that was released smack dab in the middle of a summer choked with giant blockbusters hell bent on leveling cities and ruthlessly murdering tens of thousands of people (off screen, of course). The danger in "The Conjuring" was hyper-focused, which made it even more powerful. Blum worked with Wan on both "Insidious" and "Insidious: Chapter 2," and so it was a thrill for him to see his frequent collaborator garner that kind of praise and commercial success. "I thought 'The Conjuring' was awesome," Blum said. "I think James is unbelievably talented. He certainly does scary as well as anybody out there. I worked on him for a long time to do the sequel to 'Insidious' and I'm really psyched that he did that." When we asked for a tease for "Insidious: Chapter 2," all he said was that audiences can, "Expect answers." Spooky answers, we're assuming.

"Mama"
Budget: $15 million 
Gross: $146 million (worldwide)
What's It About: A man (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) and his commitment-phobic girlfriend (Jessica Chastain) retrieve his nieces from an abandoned cabin in the woods, where they have been living since their father murdered their mother (and was then dispensed of himself). How the two young girls survived in the woods is a mystery, although it soon becomes apparent that they weren't exactly alone, and a ghostly figure (dubbed "Mama" by the girls) starts visiting them in their new home.
Why Did It Succeed? Like "The Conjuring," "Mama" was a throwback to more classical horror tropes. This wasn't a movie with buckets of blood or sophisticated technology. It was a spooky ghost story, the kind that you'd tell around the campfire, infused with occasionally dreamy imagery and equally dreamy narrative reaches. Some may have had issue with calling this movie a "success," given the pedigree of both studio Universal (whose Horror Classics remain a benchmark of the genre) and producer Guillermo del Toro (seen by many as a hugely important figure in the genre). But Universal hadn't had a horror hit in a while, outside of their massively successful "Mummy" franchise (a similar attempt at reviving the classics, "Van Helsing," failed miserably) and the last horror movie that Guillermo del Toro executive produced that was supposed to be a sensation, 2011's "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark," faltered at the box office, barely making back its production budget. Blum thought "Mama" was "great," and suspects the gore-soaked spectacles like "Saw" will probably return some day soon. "Genres are cyclical to a degree, and I think the trend in horror has gotten to be more supernatural and less graphic," Blum said. He then added: "I'm sure someone will do something new and the pendulum will swing back again."

"Texas Chainsaw 3D"
Budget: Under $20 million
Gross: $40 million (worldwide)
What's It About: A direct, dimensionalized sequel (weirdly) to Tobe Hooper's original masterpiece, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," the new film imagines the events following the first film: the angry townspeople burning down the house of Leatherface and his cannibalistic clan, a young baby secreted away for decades, and what happens when that baby (now a busty young woman played by Alexandra Daddario) comes to reclaim her family estate. It's also about the squishy 3D thrill of watching a chainsaw split a human body in two.
Why Did It Succeed? Part of the movie's success had to do with the fact that it jettisoned much of the franchise's mythology (including Hooper's own "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2," the two other sequels, and the two Michael Bay-produced remakes), effectively re-booting the property for the post-"Saw" audience. 3D, too, always serves grimy horror pieces like this better than virtually any other genre, since it's able to exploit the zoom-out-into-your-lap potential of the medium without feeling hokey (since it's already so hokey). Plus, its shockingly large haul came over the first weekend in January, which isn't exactly a rich marketplace for new films. While not a runaway box office smash (it ended up making about the same as New Line's underrated "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning"), it still turned a healthy profit, especially given its tangle of production companies (including Millennium Films and Twisted Pictures, producers of "Saw") that not even a chainsaw could unknot.

There are still a bunch of horror hopefuls on the horizon, October's remake of "Carrie," and January's "I, Frankenstein." Of course, there are a number of genre offerings coming from Blumhouse Productions as well, most excitingly the remake of beloved '70s cult film "The Town That Dreaded Sundown," which will be co-produced by "Glee" creator Ryan Murphy and directed by "American Horror Story" wizard Alfonso Gomez-Rejon. Since we were talking to Blum, we had to quiz him about it. "I just saw the first cut of it and it looks really cool. We don't have a date for that movie yet but it will be sometime next year, for sure," adding that he and Murphy are a good match because they love musicals and horror movies in equal measure. Which of these movies will break the box office remains to be seen, although with horror films the only thing that really matters is whether or not it will be shown at some kid's slumber party in fifteen years. And that's kind of hard to gauge.

You might also like:
Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

3 Comments

  • El Hanso | August 22, 2013 6:06 PMReply

    Is this a game of "Which of the five does not belong?" There's no way "Texas Chainsaw 3D" can be part of this list. It might have narrowly reached profitable areas, but it made way less than everyone involved hoped. Not enough for a relatively expensive 3D (!) reboot of a classic, with a series of sequels and earlier reboots in the years between said classic and this film. There's a reason the early announcement of a sequel has led to nothing so far. The second week drop was just extremely telling.

  • Arch | August 23, 2013 4:51 AM

    Agreed, kind off. I mean it was not a highly profitable flick due its budget (and even with 3D involved: where did the money go seriously !?), and the worldwide score is far from impressive.
    But I'm not sure anybody expected more than that, and as it turns out it was a box office hit anyway (was it #1 ? not sure). Really curious to see how You're next will perform.

  • Arch | August 22, 2013 2:59 PMReply

    So, looking back, it turns out that the Evil Dead remake was FAR from being a huge commercial success (unlike what Sony keeps saying here and there). Let's admit it was more quite decent though.

    By the way I really don't share your excitement about "The town...". Because they said it would be meta (codename for derivative and tongue in cheek) and because Gomez-Rejon directed the most unimaginative and phony AHS episode (which is a lot to say considering how bad this show actually is). Just sayin.

Email Updates