Critics Say Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 Is a Clunker

by

Critics widely panned the movie Five Nights at Freddy’s 2, calling it poorly made. Jesse Hassenger of The Guardian pointed out its awkward transitions, comparing them to the clumsy movements of a robot. The film currently has a low 12% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with most reviewers describing it as dull, confusing, or uninspired. However, RogerEbert.com offered a different perspective, praising it as a fun, nostalgic throwback to 1980s adventure-horror films. Interestingly, audiences seem to disagree with critics; at the time of publication, the film had an 88% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, suggesting many viewers are still enjoying the movie and its characters.

Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 takes place a year after the first movie, and follows Mike (Josh Hutcherson), Vanessa (Elizabeth Lail), and Abby (Piper Rubio) as they continue to grapple with the frightening events from their time at the pizza place. According to Bilge Ebiri of Vulture, the film’s focus on trauma feels overdone, as many horror movies now rely heavily on it. He notes that older horror films could scare audiences with simpler concepts, like a masked killer or a monster, but those days seem to be gone.

Bilge Ebiri of Vulture observes that the Five Nights at Freddy’s series has become increasingly focused on trauma, even more so in the sequel. While the first film felt like a rough introduction to horror for younger audiences, the second film attempts the same for a slightly older group, relying on familiar horror tropes. Ultimately, Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 joins the growing number of modern horror films centered around trauma, and seems to aim to simply replicate other scary movies.

The animatronic characters in the Five Nights at Freddy’s films are so clumsy and awkward in their movements that it’s hard to believe they can move quickly enough to actually be threatening. Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 suffers from the same problem. It’s noticeably awkward, constantly reminding you how poorly it handles basic filmmaking techniques – like smoothly moving between scenes or locations – something even less successful movies usually manage to do without drawing attention to it.

As a big fan, I was really hoping the sequel would build on the first film, and it’s disappointing to say it doesn’t quite hit the mark. Scott Cawthon wrote the script himself this time, and honestly, it feels a bit messy. He sets up a lot of interesting ideas and storylines, but then just… drops them! It’s like no one reviewed the script before they started filming, which is a shame, especially for a franchise everyone loves. It feels like they just assumed it would make money regardless of the story quality.

Chris Hayner of Polygon found the sequel lacking in scares, similar to the first film. While both are rated PG-13 and weren’t expected to be overly graphic, the original movie had more impactful kills and a more suspenseful build-up to the reveal of Freddy Fazbear’s story. Hayner notes the director demonstrated an ability to create effective PG-13 horror in the first film, but that quality was missing in the sequel.

This movie boasts a richer story and more dynamic filmmaking, with creative camera work and visual flair. It truly feels like a successful video game adaptation, drawing on familiar video game tropes with its dramatic backstory and predictable, yet detailed, plot. The film’s heroes heavily utilize classic technology – think computer maps, passwords, walkie-talkies, and headphones – adding to this feel. It’s reminiscent of the straightforward, enjoyable sequels made frequently in the 1980s, and feels like a perfect nostalgic throwback – a smart and well-made horror-adventure in the style of Amblin Entertainment or Spielberg’s early work, and definitely worth watching.

Read More

2025-12-06 03:54