Here’s a bold statement: Black Phone 2 defies everything you thought you knew about slasher horror films. But here’s where it gets controversial—while most slasher sequels amp up the gore and body count, this one does the exact opposite. Yes, you read that right. In a genre where 'bigger is better' is practically the mantra, Black Phone 2 delivers a shockingly low kill count—zero in the present timeline. And this is the part most people miss: it’s not just a creative choice; it’s a game-changer for the genre.
Directed by Scott Derrickson and written by C. Robert Cargill, the sequel reunites us with The Grabber, the masked killer from the first film, who—spoiler alert—died in the original. Yet, he’s back, and this time, he’s targeting Finn (Mason Thames) and his younger sister, Gwen (Madeleine McGraw), in a chilling blend of dreamscape nightmares and real-life horror. Gwen, now 15, begins receiving eerie calls from the titular black phone in her dreams, leading her to visions of three boys stalked at a winter camp called Alpine Lake. Convinced they must act, Finn and Gwen brave a winter storm to investigate, only to find The Grabber waiting for them—not in the flesh, but in Gwen’s dreams, à la Freddy Krueger. What follows is a terrifying journey to uncover the truth behind the missing boys and stop The Grabber once and for all.
Here’s the twist: despite the film’s intense scares and violence, The Grabber doesn’t actually kill anyone in the present. Every death we see is from the past, revealed through flashbacks. This is wildly unconventional for a slasher film. Sure, there are exceptions—like April Fool’s Day, which famously fakes its kills—but they’re rare. Most slashers thrive on high body counts. Take Halloween Kills, where Michael Myers racks up 30 kills, or Jason Voorhees, who’s murdered over 180 people across the Friday the 13th franchise. So, Black Phone 2’s approach isn’t just bold—it’s practically unheard of.
But Derrickson and Cargill aren’t strangers to subverting expectations. In Sinister, another of their collaborations, most of the kills are shown through found footage, with the present-day deaths saved for the climax. With Black Phone 2, they’ve taken a similar risk, opting for psychological terror over gratuitous violence. It’s a refreshing change in an era where franchises often feel content to recycle the same old formulas until they’re worn out. And this is the part most people miss: by focusing on suspense and character development, the film proves that horror doesn’t need a high body count to be effective.
That said, this approach isn’t without its risks. Some fans might argue that a slasher film without kills in the present timeline loses its edge. After all, isn’t the thrill of these movies watching the villain’s rampage? But Black Phone 2 challenges us to think differently. What if the real horror lies in the psychological scars left behind, or the lingering fear of what could happen? It’s a thought-provoking question that’s sure to spark debate.
Here’s a controversial thought: Could this be the future of slasher films? Or is it a one-off experiment that works only because of the franchise’s unique setup? Let’s discuss in the comments—do you think Black Phone 2’s low kill count enhances the horror, or does it miss the mark? And if you’re craving more, Black Phone 2 is in theaters now, ready to challenge everything you thought you knew about slasher horror.
