
Sony's own PS4 horror classic Until Dawn has made the jump to the big screen in the form of a fairly loose adaptation that hits theatres today, 25th April. The original game, which was remastered for some reason on PS5, is considered a favourite by many and the best work Supermassive Games has ever done.
However, it doesn't appear the translation to film has drawn similar plaudits. The movie currently has a Metacritic rating of 53, though its Rotten Tomatoes score is sitting at a more positive 63 per cent.
Below you'll find a selection of Until Dawn movie reviews, from the most positive to the most negative and everything in between. Let us know if these verdicts make you want to see the film or not in the comments below.
Screen Rant - 8/10
As grotesque as some of the scenes are, it's a horror movie with a relatively happy ending. Even though we've seen everybody die many times over by the movie's conclusion, you never stop rooting for Clover and her friends to get the chance to really live. You can't fault Until Dawn for already dropping hints about a potential sequel; the building blocks of a long-running universe of terror are all there. With any luck, this strong start will be just the beginning of a terrifying universe every audience member can enjoy.
SlashFilm - 8/10
Although the film is deliberately not a repetition of the video game's plot, it absolutely adapts the game's implicit concept of asking the player whether they could actually survive a horror movie or not. "Until Dawn" the movie subtextually asks those questions of its viewers throughout, and with so many various beasties to encounter, the answers will vary for each person alone, never mind for multiple people. The movie's variety is the peanut butter to that idea's chocolate, never allowing the film to feel stuck in one mode even as it establishes its own structure. To borrow a phrase from Bobby, "Until Dawn" really does feel like the platonic ideal of a graveyard smash.
Paste Magazine - 61/100
For maybe half its 103-minute running time, maybe even a little more, Until Dawn gets by on its spookhouse variety and surprising humor. Once Clover and company start to solve the puzzle at hand, though, it becomes more akin to a dull movie of a presumably exciting game – something like Silent Hill, though never quite that lugubrious. Though the threats are obviously doled out with a love of different types of horror, the characters never feel like they’re becoming genre experts; the movie never really ratchets up and ultimately doesn’t pay off. Though the game it’s based on is of a more recent and sophisticated vintage, the movie is closer to an arcade experience: You pump in some quarters and kill some time, until one or the other runs out.
The Guardian - 6/10
Until Dawn is well-staged and entirely inoffensive, which, in a year that’s seen horror dreck like The Monkey, Opus, The Gorge, Heart Eyes and Wolf Man, will just about do. It’s held together by Sandberg, a director who has mastered the art of totally competent studio horror with slick, equally forgettable films like Lights Out and Annabelle: Creation and he again shows himself to be a crisply efficient commercial film-maker again let down by a far less effective script. For a film all about repetition, one viewing will suffice.
IGN - 5/10
Until Dawn shares a title and some key details with the game that inspired it, though it mostly tries to do its own thing – to mixed results. While Annabelle: Creation director David F. Sandberg is able to find moments of bloody fun and tension – particularly in the way he shoots darkness – the lackluster script he’s working with isn’t doing him or the movie any favors. It isn’t a total disaster, but as it pushed its one-dimensional characters through a cycle of horror cinema’s greatest hits, I wished that the morning could come as quickly as possible.
The New York Times - 4/10
The director, David F. Sandberg (“Annabelle: Creation”) does an exhausting job moving along a script, written by Gary Dauberman and Blair Butler, that’s made slack by mediocre monsters, muddled time loop stuff and underdeveloped characters who seem straight out of a lesser “Goosebumps” episode.
The A.V. Club - 33/100
Horror, whether in games or in movies, is about setups and payoffs. Until Dawn is a film almost exclusively of setups, with the payoffs either mismatched or permanently deferred. In its indecision around what kind of film it wanted to turn a decision-driven game into, firing its shotgun approach haphazardly into the air, it incoherently spins itself in circles.
[source metacritic.com]





Comments 30
Going to go see it this weekend with my daughter looks like a lot of fun
My spouse and I are seeing it for our anniversary this weekend. We don't expect it to be good, but even if it's not we expect to have a good time!
So that's how it is? We some sort of... Dark Pictures Anthology?
About what I expected. This movie always looked like shlock. The game was shlock too, and I mean that as a compliment. I'm still looking forward to seeing it.
Not every game needs a movie adaptation, especially one where it's quite literally an interactive movie with choicemaking.
Not gonna lie, I didn't even know the movie will be releasing tomorrow lol
I forgot this even existed. Did they use the same actors as the game at least?
@HRdepartment - No, not the same history. It has some elements that connects the movie to the game(s) and that universe.
I'm more interested in what horror fans think because mainstream doesn't have much time for most of the genre.
Completely forgot this was coming out. Not a great decision releasing it in the USA on the same weekend as the NFL Draft. But I’m not sure how conflicting those target audiences are tbh
Sandberg is proving to be a pretty bad director post Shazam. Honestly though who asked or wanted this film? Until Dawn is great because it takes advantage of the medium its in and has the player have a huge amount of input over the story. You can't really translate that to film so instead you're left with another "Teens in Cabin" style film with a gimmick better suited to another style of horror film.
@AdamNovice Sinners is one of the best reviewed films this year and critics and even award shows went crazy over The Substance last year. In fact horror films right now are in a new golden age and its why trash like this ain't good enough anymore.
Likely just a fun little jump scare flick. No one’s expecting Citizen Kane. By the way, Citizen Kane is boring as hell!
Horror movies never review well with very rare exceptions so the fact this has a fresh rating on RT is a win in my book
@DennisReynolds my guy it’s def true horror movies rarely review well besides very rare exceptions and calling this trash when the reviews don’t paint that picture is ridiculous
As a horror afficionado, I'm looking forward to this. Looks fun! No chance it will push "Sinners" off the top spot of favourite 2025 movie, but it doesn't have to. Seeing it tomorrow
I like cheesy b movie type horror movies. I loved the first 3 Friday the 13th movies and I even liked Saturday the 14th (ask your dad's kids.) I'll watch this eventually as these kind of movies are the perfect Saturday night movies. I even enjoyed the borderlands movie and yes I know it really was crap but I enjoyed it even more because of it..oh well at least havoc is on Netflix tonight..
I learned to not look at reviews/scores when it comes to horror. Somehow the interesting movies never come out on top and the slowburns (not saying this is one) are misunderstood most of the times. Many of my favorites score around 40-50/100.
huh? didn‘t they say two weeks ago it‘s a supergood horror movie!? there were news about that
A big difference in some of those reviews. I suppose it depends on what the reviewers were expecting from it. Seems worth a watch at least.
I’ve also learned to ignore critics when it comes to horror. I agree with the first comment, not sure why it was made when the original medium was an interactive movie.
@HMazzy111 reviews are just someone’s opinion. They’ll differ quite often. I always remind people that “professionally just means someone does something for a living. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re good at that something. “Professional” reviewers are just as good at reviewing as you and I.
I think RT is a way better metric than Metacritic for films. 63% is pretty standard fare for shlocky horror flicks too, which is exactly what Until Dawn is - but playable. Your mileage may vary for how much you'd enjoy that without the gameplay.
Doesn't look interesting enough for me to pay money to see, maybe if it was streamed I'll watch. But most video games, even if story driven, simply don't make good movies. The first season of telltale walking dead might be the only one I'd give a try in movie form.
@GirlVersusGame The only adaptations that seem to have escaped that bias are TLOU, Fallout, and Arcane. I wonder if the television format has anything to do with it? TV executives and critics aren't as jealous of the games industry?
I also have to add that the guidelines for reviews has changed too. It's less about what the individual viewing the material thinks and more about what the material represents to the brand or entity that person is representing. It shouldn't be the case since they are sending someone who is supposed to have that subjective experience. Instead it's become very objective heavy, if it doesn't mesh well with their readers they'll automatically look for faults. Those faults then end up outweighing those redeeming features.
There are two media outlets listed above who've already done that, they'll do it for the next one too and the one after that. Even clickbait has become part of the reviewer mentality, some are told that 'reasons why this sucks!' etc generates more views/reads than 'I liked it'. It's a reflection on society too, sometimes we like to see something fall flat on it's face for the sake of watching it happen.
@Orpheus79V That's part of it. Hollywood is trying to catch up with streaming but streaming doesn't have the politics (and favor system) that's allowed a lot of people (Execs to fail uphill) for example one of the biggest Hollywood producers started out as Barbra Streisand's hairdresser. Then he went on to produce Batman. It's not because of any creative input, it's who he knew. Most don't care about the script or the picture, but some exercise 'creative control' and once that happens it's not the director's vision anymore.
That system hasn't fully made it's way into streaming. The investors are newer and understand the current digital landscape, which includes video games. That's a big part of why you're seeing so many games being adapted to good shows, the people at the top have a higher level of awareness and will bring in technical advisors who understand the source material. I'm guilty of that favor system too, I guest-list friends for concerts and in return they guest-list me for advanced screenings. It's a small thing but it gets worse the higher up you go and it's rarely not a case of 'who you know'. I'm not saying people are being paid to give glowing reviews, just that sometimes it can be difference between a box seat and aisle seat.
It happens in music too, sometimes accidentally. Reviews too often depend on how you treat the reviewer. Some publications have long standing links to different media companies, they know who they are sending in and why. There was supposed to be a trail system where reviewers would be given access to a stream of the material, a lot like Netflix but locked down. The fear was that it could be hacked (hackers usually only get the soundtrack for a movie because it's separate to the reel) but this way they'd get the whole thing. You wouldn't believe how many unreleased songs from top artists have been stolen and no ones talking about it.
The entertainment industry hasn't been able to lock anything down. Until they can come up with a more modest review system there will always be people who are more inclined to look more favorably on the material because of the way they were treated. That's not happening with TV, people are getting codes, the comfort level is their own home. It makes for a more honest reviewing situation. It's also why you're seeing so many TV show leaks, hackers keep cracking that system too but the subscription model more than makes up for the loss. It doesn't with the box office because they don't make money off the individual unless that person actually visits a theater. But 'jealous?', it's not a jealousy, they just don't understand the format and most are unwilling to learn it. Some studios have been looking more into streaming their back catalogues, but not the box office. Too many people have a percentage of the theaters themselves, the same was true for video distribution. They are too stubborn and don't want to lose their percentage. They'll do a lot to protect that, favorable reviews are only part of it.
@dark_knightmare2 Do you want me to list you all the horror films with high acclaim of the past 10 years? Again the highest rated film this year so far is Sinners, The Substance got Oscar noms and Demi Moore won a Golden Globe for it.
Most movies based on games suck. It’s an unwritten rule.
@DennisReynolds it's gotten better with critic reviews of horror films, but usually reserved for those that actually have something to say or do something new. The ones you mentioned and others like hereditary and get out are truly fantastic films, even outside the horror bubble.
Still, I find a critic that doesn't take the creators intentions and the goal audience into consideration a bit narrow minded. Even schlock has it's place and can vary in quality.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...