Film Review: Five Nights at Freddy’s is a Film “For the Fans,” But Is It Actually Good?
Lauren Nolan ‘24
Still from Five Nights At Freddy's via Universal Pictures
On Oct. 27, Jason Blum, CEO of Blumhouse Pictures and co-producer of Five Nights at Freddy's, tweeted a screenshot circling the film's 89% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes with the caption, "Thank you FNAF fans. You guys are passionate and great." What he ignored was the 24% critic score right beside it.
In recent memory, there has been a growing divide between critic and audience reactions. The other prominent video game adaptation this year, The Super Mario Bros Movie, received similarly lackluster reviews from publications and acclaim from the general public. More and more, studios are tailoring their franchise-driven features toward fan responses. It's why films like Spider-Man: No Way Home exist. Following its release, Five Nights at Freddy's marketing has particularly leaned into this fan-IP relationship, with a promo featurette named "For the Fans" and follow-up tweets from Blum that declare, "We wanted to get it just right for the[m]. That's all we focused on."
It makes sense considering the video game franchise's massive cult following since its release in 2014. Looking at the movie with positive audience engagement in mind, Five Nights at Freddy's is a complete success. Fans are bound to be satisfied by the countless cameos and easter eggs, referencing everything from its book series to niche in-jokes. It is a film destined for those "10 Things You Missed" listicles and YouTube videos with red-circled thumbnails. However, when looking at it as a horror movie, Five Nights at Freddy's flounders.
The Five Nights at Freddy's video game has a unique appeal. For as simple as the premise is—don't get murdered in the knock-off Chuck-E-Cheese—the fanbase is seemingly more interested in the non-playable aspects of the series. There are hours-long deep-dive analyses explaining the franchise's over-arching story. In an attempt to capture this aspect of the games, the Freddy's movie puts the titular animatronic playplace in the backseat, opting instead to focus on the plights of the human protagonists. What results is a misguided movie that wastes its campy horror setup for a story that is neither scary nor fun.
It was not an easy process to get the franchise adaptation off the ground. The project, announced in 2015, faced major setbacks: studio acquisition battles, rewrites, delays, dueling scripts, and even being canceled altogether at one point. The current screenplay is credited to a team of five people, including director Emma Tammi and original game creator Scott Cawthon. With so many voices, the writing becomes jumbled. The film is never sure of what it wants to be, and as a result, becomes underdeveloped in nearly every way.
There is much to appreciate about Five Nights at Freddy's, particularly its set design and practical animatronic puppets made by the Jim Henson Company. The efforts to recreate that wonderfully cheesy 80's aesthetics are evident, and the results are amazing. By the time the worn-out "Welcome to Freddy's" VHS starts playing, the film sets itself up to be a thrilling, over-the-top-playful slasher. Yet the Tammi, spends so little time basking in what makes Freddy's enjoyable.
The plot revolves around Mike, played by Josh Hutcherson, the newest security guard at Freddy Fazbear's Pizza. While working the night shifts, Mike falls asleep and becomes tormented by visions of his now-dead brother's kidnapping and several other children taunting him. Less focused on thrills, the story concentrates on solving the mystery of what these dreams mean. For a film called Five Nights at Freddy's, most nights pan away from the rainbow-bright pizzeria to focus on the muted grey forest where that incident occurred. Even the video game's signature jumpscares are few and far between, creating an oddly quiet, downbeat experience.
For a movie based on a horror video game, made by a production company specializing in horror, Five Nights at Freddy’s scares are severely lacking. Some have attributed this to its PG-13 rating. And though the toned-down censored scares of implied violence and kills contribute, its lack of tension comes down to Freddy’s inexplicably somber tone and disregard towards its killer bots. In recent years, studios have released movies like Willy's Wonderland or The Banana Splits Movie in response to FNAF's success. Though certainly not masterpieces, those movies at least recognize its core appeal: watching children's mascots go on rampant murdering sprees.
Freddy's also faces one other major dilemma, and it is an unusual one: the film alienates audiences unfamiliar with the franchise's pre-established 'lore.' This partially explains why critic and audience scores diverge so greatly. If someone is not already knowledgeable about Cawthon’s elaborate narrative, they will walk out of the theater more confused than when they entered. The film raises questions and never adequately answers them, under the presumption that fans will understand. The twist ending revolves around a fan-favorite character never previously mentioned. For those in the know, it is a moment to clap, for everyone else, it’s a moment to shrug. With no established stakes, there is no reason to care.
Five Nights at Freddy's does not understand that video games and films are inherently different mediums. Aspects of the games, like its storytelling through unlockable secret details, translate into a muddled narrative in film. Necessities for a competent movie—developed characters, steady pacing, and setups and payoffs—are disregarded for story beats centered around fanservice and references. The film has seen massive success so far at the box office (though let's be honest, it was never not going to do well), with a sequel already in the works. Hopefully, in Freddy's successors, the filmmakers can strike a better balance between appealing to fans and crafting a well-made movie. Or, at the very least, show more of the evil Chuck-E-Cheese animatronics. That would be fun, too.