Roberto Giacomelli
•When a sequel to a horror film based on a cult video game, like the Five Nights at Freddy's saga, is announced, the hope is to see terror, tension, and a convincing lore translated to the big screen. The first film, released in 2023, despite being an artistic disaster (here's our review), managed to capitalize on fan-service: nearly $300 million worldwide, demonstrating that the mix between video game franchise and horror-popcorn still has a significant market. For this second chapter of Five Nights at Freddy's, the promotional premises—especially the promise of a greater push towards horror, with more action and tension—left hope for something more. But the final result is tragically worse than the already mediocre original.
After a prologue in 1982, where we learn about the sad death of little Charlotte, the first victim of serial killer William Afton in a Freddy Fazbear Restaurant, the story resumes a year after the events of the first film. The legends about what happened at Freddy Fazbear's Pizza have become local folklore, to the point that the city organizes a "Fazfest" that brings together adults and children in Fazbear-themed cosplay. Mike and Vanessa have hidden the truth from Mike's little sister, Abby. But when the latter sneaks into the restaurant to see the animatronics she misses so much, a new wave of terror is unleashed.
Although the first was already a bad movie, with this second chapter the saga collapses definitively: Five Nights at Freddy's 2 is the demonstration that this saga has not found its most complete form on the big screen and is no longer able to get out of a manifest state of narrative and creative impotence.
The prologue set in 1982, which shows the main villain and his tragic origin, seems to promise well by opening unsettling scenarios. Too bad that these good omens remain only intentional and already from the first half hour the film begins to derail.
The new characters (the YouTuber Lisa, played by Mckenna Grace, first of all) have no real narrative utility: inserted in a purely pretextual manner, they disappear or are abandoned after a short time, as if the script had been cut, remade, or simply written poorly from the beginning, with too many elements thrown in without coherence. As also happens with the "discovery" of the Freddy Fazbear's Restaurant where the first murder took place, as if having this relocated place had a real utility, or the further family twists of Vanessa, which appear to be a pretext really clumsy.
Among the "historic" characters, Mike (always played by Josh "Frank Matano" Hutcherson) is almost non-existent, and the film seems to want to focus on Vanessa (Elizabeth Lail), transforming her into a central point of the narration: but her inner torment, the family legacy, the psychological implications related to her serial killer father are treated with superficiality, haste, without giving depth to the conflict. Little Abby (Piper Rubio) also seems unconvincing, very distant from any psychological realism; moreover, the supernatural implications related to her in the first film are inexplicably ignored.
As for the new supernatural element: the Puppet from the second video game is introduced as a "new villain," an entity capable of possessing objects and humans, a threat different from the only "physical" animatronics as in the first film. Its look, dark and disturbing, could have been a strong point, since it reminds a cross between Billy the puppet from the Saw saga and Kaonashi from Spirited Away. But the direction and screenplay do not know how to build fear: the scenes meant to be disturbing or dark come off as clumsy, the tension is not calibrated; the "jump scares" alternate with dead moments, in fact boring, and everything seems insecure, without rhythm. Despite the promises of "more horror," this second chapter also lacks blood, violence, a concrete horror atmosphere: the PG-13 rating sanctions a sterilization of fear, returning to targeting an adolescent if not pre-adolescent audience.
And then there's the red herring: the much-touted reunion of horror icons like Matthew Lillard and Skeet Ulrich (famous duo from a cult like Scream) turns out to be a bluff. Matthew Lillard only appears in a dream sequence (given his "death" in the first film), and Skeet Ulrich appears for a few seconds in a marginal role. The two do not share the screen practically at all: the promised reunion is not there, and that "nostalgic call" is just marketing.
The ending, then, is not an ending. It's a pretext for another movie. In fact, a mid-credits scene tries to launch clues about the direction a hypothetical Five Nights At Freddy's 3 could take. But at this point, the saga would already need a reboot, and perhaps directors and screenwriters who really understand how to make a horror movie.
Five Nights at Freddy's 2 is not just a bad movie: it's a missed opportunity. When a saga of video games already based on jump-scares seeks to make a film, firm hands, awareness of rhythm, and respect for the atmosphere are needed. This sequel fails on almost every level: the fear does not arrive; the characters do not engage; the mythology is confused and the lore piles up without order.
In the end, despite some visual ideas and a potentially interesting premise, the film turns out to be a weak product—even worse than the first—that only stands on the echo of the brand. The result is a horror that we would have once defined as "from the cassette" and today we could indicate as "from the platform," designed for the younger audience or for viewers looking only for some jump-scares between a burp and a handful of popcorn.
Comments