logo

Game Over: A Critical Dissection of 'Five Nights at Freddy’s' Transformation from Pixels to Panic on the Big Screen

Movie Review: Video game-to-horror flick 'Five Nights at Freddy’s' misfires badly

Just in time for Halloween, the much-anticipated adaptation of the popular video game, "Five Nights at Freddy’s," hits the big screen with the promise of spine-chilling animatronic chaos reminiscent of a demented Chuck E. Cheese. However, what seemed like a potential treat turns out to be a cinematic trick played on the audience. This film, born from developer Scott Cawthon's game about robots with a taste for mayhem, falls flat, and the missteps begin with the eerie creatures themselves.

Sure, these animatronics sport unsettling bright eyes and teeth, but the terror quickly dissipates when one of them dons a bow tie, reminiscent of a PBS guest. Far from invoking fear, these creatures appear more threadbare than eerie, with a chubby chicken sporting the slogan "Let’s Eat" and a cupcake making a surprising appearance in the lineup. Despite stomping around like characters from The Terminator, they come across as about as menacing as overgrown Care Bears struggling with a drinking problem.

Stranded between the realms of PG and R, and caught in the awkward space between inadvertent comedy and horror, the PG-13 “Five Nights at Freddy’s” earns its place as one of the year's most lackluster films across genres. Following the game's premise, our protagonist is a night watchman mysteriously hired to safeguard the ruins of a long-abandoned children's pizza-and-games joint, closed in the '80s due to a series of mysterious disappearances.

Josh Hutcherson takes on the role of the guard with a mix of hotheadedness and compassion, driven by a simple motivation — to keep custody of his younger sister, Abby, played convincingly by Piper Rubio. Mary Stuart Masterson joins the cast, slumming it as the hero's aunt, while Matthew Lillard chews scenery as if it were a slice of pepperoni.

Director Emma Tammi, working with a script credited to her, Cawthon, and Seth Cuddeback, attempts to inject the film with a rich backstory, providing a convoluted reason for the existence of murderous animatronic characters. The narrative weaves through family betrayal, the lingering pain of an abducted sibling, a potential romantic subplot, and a plot so convoluted it could cameo in a "Saw" movie.

"I made a mistake. I don’t want this," cries our hero towards the film's climax, a sentiment likely shared by the audience. Numerous puzzling elements, from the heavy use of "Talking in Your Sleep" by the Romantics to a perplexing lack of understanding of human decay in the script, leave viewers questioning the film's direction. Dialogue oscillates abruptly from flirty to angry within the same scene, and the revelation that the maniacal Care Bears can talk comes only in the final 10 minutes, leaving audiences with more questions than answers.

In the end, "Five Nights at Freddy’s" misses the mark, delivering a disappointingly disjointed mix of horror and unintentional hilarity that fails to capture the essence of the beloved video game.

Dreamstate Disarray: "Five Nights at Freddy’s" Hits Rock Bottom in Cinematic Nightmare

In a twist of irony, the most captivating moments of "Five Nights at Freddy’s" unfold within the realm of dreams, a cinematic escapade that might prompt you to gently nudge your drowsy seatmates to re-engage with the unfolding spectacle. The film's reliance on "Talking in Your Sleep" becomes questionable, perhaps a sonic prod to rouse both characters and audience from slumber during these dream sequences.

Regrettably, the filmmakers squander a rare opportunity to infuse horror into the innocuous setting of a children's ball pit, a choice that could have elevated the film's suspense. However, the nadir of absurdity is reached when the supposedly menacing animatronics—Freddy Fazbear, Bonnie, Chica, and Foxy—trade their ominous demeanor for hosting a kiddie dance party. It's as if even these characters can't escape their origins from Jim Henson’s Creature Shop, leaving audiences bewildered by the jarring juxtaposition.

The film's descent into chaos prompts contemplation on whether the entire endeavor should have remained confined to the realm of gaming. "Five Nights at Freddy’s," presented by Universal Pictures and available in theaters and on Peacock, strives for a PG-13 rating, warning of "strong violent content, bloody images, and language" within its 110-minute runtime. A dismal assessment renders it deserving of zero stars out of four.

For those unfamiliar with the MPAA's PG-13 classification, parents are strongly cautioned that the material may be inappropriate for children under 13, a caution that rings especially true for this ill-fated cinematic venture. To explore more about the film, visit https://www.fivenightsatfreddys.movie. For commentary and updates, follow Mark Kennedy on Twitter at http://twitter.com/KennedyTwits.

In conclusion, "Five Nights at Freddy’s" treads a perilous path between dreams and disillusionment, leaving audiences grappling with a cinematic experience that veers wildly from the macabre to the absurd. Despite the potential inherent in a horror adaptation of the beloved video game, the film falters in its execution, relying on dream sequences to inject vitality into an otherwise lackluster narrative.

The questionable use of the soundtrack, notably "Talking in Your Sleep," raises eyebrows as the audience is nudged awake during these dreamstate interludes. Opportunities to instill fear, such as the ill-fated attempt to make a kids' ball pit terrifying, are squandered, contributing to a disjointed and unsatisfying viewing experience.

The lowest point arrives when the menacing animatronics, originating from Jim Henson’s Creature Shop, abandon their ominous nature for a kiddie dance party, underscoring the film's struggle to reconcile horror with its whimsical origins.

As "Five Nights at Freddy’s" grapples with an identity crisis, one is left pondering whether this venture should have remained confined to the interactive realm of gaming. With a PG-13 rating for "strong violent content, bloody images, and language," the film fails to strike a balance between its intended horror elements and a narrative that careens between dreamlike sequences and jarring absurdity.

Earning a resounding zero stars out of four, the film ultimately disappoints, failing to capture the essence of the video game phenomenon it seeks to adapt. For those daring enough to embark on this cinematic nightmare, be prepared for a tumultuous journey that elicits more bewilderment than fear.