This post was originally published on here
The first “Five Nights at Freddy’s” movie surprised me. I walked in expecting a messy cash-grab built solely for fans of the video game series, and instead got a solid little horror flick. It wasn’t groundbreaking, it wasn’t deep, and it certainly wasn’t reinventing the genre, but it had atmosphere, it had fun, it had some clever moments, and it had characters you could actually get behind.
So, when the sequel was announced, I went in cautiously optimistic. Not “please-let-this-be-great” optimistic, just “hopefully-this-will-be-a-good-time-with-popcorn” optimistic.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t.
If the first movie was a pleasant surprise, “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” is the unwelcome reminder that surprise sequels exist purely because the studio already cashed the first check.
Here’s what worked and the much longer list of what didn’t.
A few scares still land
Let me give credit where credit is due: There are a handful of good jump scares and a few genuinely creepy visuals.
The animatronics remain unsettling in that uncanny, jerky-limbed, “this is what happens when childhood dreams curdle into nightmares” kind of way.
And there’s one new character, I won’t spoil who, who is legitimately eerie and whose presence could have been a highlight in a better film.
Now let’s talk about everything else.
The characters are… rough
I know horror movies thrive on characters making bad decisions. It’s part of the genre’s DNA. “Don’t go in the basement,” “don’t split up,” “don’t investigate the noise,” all of that is baked into our expectations.
But “FNAF 2” pushes that familiar trope past the point of annoyance and straight into full-blown eye-rolling endurance training.
My ocular muscles got more exercise in this movie than I have all year, and I have two teenagers.
Characters aren’t just careless, they’re aggressively, relentlessly, illogically foolish. They make choices that feel less like human behavior and more like the screenplay needed to get them from Point A to Jump Scare B.
Worse yet, the characters we actually liked from the first film? They’re suddenly unlikable here.
It feels like all the growth, emotional beats, and development from the first movie got tossed out like week-old pizza slices in the Freddy’s break room. Instead of starting from where we left off, the sequel regresses everyone to less interesting, more frustrating versions of themselves.
It’s like the movie hit reset, but not in a good “fresh start” way. It was more in a “did the writers even watch the first one?” way.
A story held together with duct tape and nostalgia
The first film had a sense of mystery and pacing, and it had creepy little breadcrumbs that built into something.
The sequel feels like a checklist of “things fans might recognize” taped together with the narrative equivalent of hot glue.
I’m not saying everything in a horror movie has to make perfect sense, but I am saying that if your story stops making sense just to justify the next jump scare, then the script needed another pass. Or 12.
The writing feels rushed, thin, and shockingly lazy, especially compared to the surprisingly thoughtful setup of the original.
Tone without tension
What made the first movie charming was its tone. That blend of campy horror, genuine suspense, and slow-burn weirdness kept you leaning forward instead of checking your watch.
That tone is completely lost here.
Instead of subtle creepiness or slowly building dread, the movie goes for the loudest, fastest, most obvious scare every time. It becomes noise instead of atmosphere, chaos instead of tension.
Even the emotional beats feel off. Moments that should matter barely register, and moments that should breathe get smothered under the movie’s desperation to get you back to the next animatronic attack.
It’s like someone took the original movie’s recipe and left out half the ingredients.
What parents should know
“Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” is rated PG-13, but it pushes the upper end of that rating.
There are plenty of jump scares, and as I mentioned, one specific character is genuinely creepy and could easily be nightmare fuel for some younger audiences. There is also a fair amount of violence and a bit more blood than I was expecting. A couple of scenes in particular were surprisingly gory, especially for a PG-13.
If your kid handled the first one, this sequel is still a step up in intensity.
Conclusion
I wish I had better news. I wanted this to be fun. I wanted to walk away surprised like I did with the first film. I wanted to enjoy more time in the bizarre, creepy world of Freddy Fazbear and company.
Instead, I got a messy, disjointed, often obnoxious movie that forgot what made the original so enjoyable.
There are a few scares, a creepy new character, and some solid visuals, but none of it is enough to save the film from shallow writing, frustrating characters, and a tone that trades subtlety for noise.
If this were a standalone horror flick, maybe I would have had more fun with the campiness. But as a sequel to a movie I unexpectedly liked, it’s a major disappointment.
Unless you’re a die-hard fan or just craving jump scares, I can’t recommend “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2.” And even then, I’d manage expectations.
[embedded content]
The Key Takeaways for this article were generated with the assistance of large language models and reviewed by our editorial team. The article, itself, is solely human-written.
