There are two lenses through which the horror sequel “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” must be viewed. First, there’s the fandom’s perspective – the legions of followers of the video game franchise are the reason these movies exist. Then there’s what the uninitiated will make of it. For the purposes of this examination, your dear reviewer will play the part of the latter pilgrim. For the former, he has recruited a venerated expert: A teen who knows oh so much about the games and their lore; an honors student and discerning cinéaste who lists “No Other Choice” and “Bugonia” among the year’s best. His verdict? “Parts of this movie were GOATed. Other parts were straight-up dookie butt.”
“Freddy’s 2” finds hapless former security guard Mike (Josh Hutcherson) trying to move on from the paranormal pandemonium of the 2023 movie. His young sister, Abby (Piper Rubio), mopes about, missing her “friends,” a defunct pizza parlor’s bloodthirsty animatronics haunted by the ghosts of children murdered by the restaurant’s serial-killer owner (Matthew Lillard). We learn Freddy Fazbear’s Pizza is a chain, and at one abandoned location, a young girl was stabbed to death and her ghost now inhabits an animatronic that looks nothing like the others, known as “The Marionette.” So the humans will be dealing with that. There’s also a kind of “Scream” reunion, with Lillard joined in the cast by Skeet Ulrich as an important figure from the games.
As with the first film, the sequel’s story has little to do with those games, loosely adapting certain plot elements and rethinking some characters. Though the original was co-written by the games’ creator, Scott Cawthon, and the sequel entirely written by him, our expert protests the new movie “did [one major character] dirty”: No spoilers, but while fans will be thrilled at the character’s initial appearance, they may resent that character’s sea change.
The learned consultant also notes there’s considerably less fan service this time around, with almost no YouTuber cameos and only a bizarre, brief appearance by one of the best-loved animatronics (not doing what it is known for). The film does utilize one of the most popular fan-generated songs in the credits, so there’s that.
However, for the non-fans not being serviced, so to speak, it’s hard to imagine an aspect of cinema in which “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” succeeds. The script is the quintessence of lead. It lumbers from functional scene to functional scene at a golem’s pace with a dismissal of logic that borders on the contemptuous – or the insane. The visuals are uninspired, humdrum. There are occasional references to other horror films (i.e., “Nosferatu,” “The Babadook”), but without wit. They feel less like homages than misdemeanors, petty theft.
The plot relies, again and again, on characters making the most foolish possible decisions, needlessly withholding information, discarding effective weapons. Young redshirts eagerly feed themselves to the grinder, flocking to a place they believe to be malevolently haunted, then splitting up as if they’ve never seen a horror movie before. Too dumb to live, indeed.
But does any of that matter? Many of the same criticisms could have been leveled at the first film, and that grossed nearly $300 million, making it Blumhouse’s highest earner so far. Fazbear followers will be delighted the violence ticks up this time (a common concern regarding the first one was that Hollywood had made a PG-13 movie of an R-rated game), despite more severe cinematic inadequacies. As our guru intoned, “I would have been happy with a two-and-a-half star [movie on a five-star scale]. This was a three.” A younger fan polled in the lobby enthused, “Out of five? Ten stars!”
For instance, the movie’s reliance on clockwork, eardrum-perforating jump scare attempts might impart headaches to the average viewer – but to fans, they’re a welcome reference to their frequent appearance in the games. Perhaps the only element this reviewer really liked, the manifestations of Marionette-controlled humans via makeup and visual effects, drew jeers from our expert, who said the Marionette itself was exactly right, but the human possessees looked “silly.”
The acting is best left unremarked upon, and the characterizations, as they are, bear little resemblance to people. Our Freddy Fazbear philosopher acknowledged this, saying, “I don’t expect careful consideration of human beings from Scott Cawthon; I came wanting to see the animatronics kill people, and they did.” “Freddy’s” movies are of the Godzilla school: Who cares about the humans? Bring me the kaiju savagery!
This reviewer could have done with considerably more mechanical monster mayhem, actually, and the denouement promises just that, before falling flat. A flaccid Freddy Fazbear finale. Our expert suspected the sequel was aimed more at setting up future installments than delivering a satisfying movie experience in and of itself. He sums: “It’s kind of awesome if you’re a fan of the games, but if you’re not, there’s nothing to like about it.”
