Fear Street: 1994 (2021)

Lee finds the film a marvelously entertaining throwback slasher and says its ambitious gamble appears to have paid off. He particularly praises the sincere handling of the teen characters and the strong young ensemble cast.

Willmore finds the first installment a nasty, effective slasher that avoids being overly burdened by metaphor. She praises its atmospheric filmmaking, especially the neon-lit opening sequence and its restrained evocation of the 1990s.

Freer finds it lively, affectionate horror that delivers on its promise. He singles out the likable teen cast and the film’s fresh spin on familiar slasher conventions.

Winning calls the film a smart, gory reinvention of the slasher genre and an ambitious trilogy opener. He singles out its nostalgic horror sensibility and bloody approach.

The critic finds it a fun, popcorn-friendly throwback that should delight viewers seeking ’90s nostalgia. They especially praise the central romance for adding heart and LGBTQ+ representation to the horror.

Ordoña finds the film uneven but ultimately rewarding as the first installment of a larger story. He criticizes its lifeless opening, clunky dialogue and jump scares, while praising its appealing cast and the more intriguing story that emerges.

Gyarkye finds the film fun and engaging, despite a slow setup and uneven attempts at subversion. She praises its young cast, suspenseful music and ’90s nostalgia, while noting that the central relationship and some characterizations need more depth.

The page appears to be a review of the specified film, but its text is inaccessible. The critic’s verdict and any praise or complaint cannot be determined from the available page.

The accessible page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. It also provides no detail about what the critic praised or criticized.

Ehrlich finds the film an entertaining but overstuffed setup whose scares and relationships suffer as it lays groundwork for the trilogy. He praises Kiana Madeira’s vulnerable, confident performance as Deena.

Dowd finds the film a polished but sanitized nostalgia trip that lacks the danger and personality of its slasher influences. He praises Leigh Janiak’s slick handling of the attacks, while faulting the generic killers and overly wholesome teens.

The critic finds this a lacklustre, overlong opening chapter that feels more like a preamble than a satisfying film on its own. The opening set-piece is thrilling, but the long gaps between kills drain the tension.

Debruge finds the film a generic, frustrating horror story that strains to be original, though its ambitions may pay off in later installments. He singles out its contemporary, queer and nonwhite teen ensemble as a distinctive take on familiar slasher conventions.

The critic finds the film succeeds at subverting familiar horror expectations while still embracing its influences. They particularly praise its focus on teamwork and mutual respect as a fresh approach to modern horror.

Vorel finds the film a bloody, ambitious, and highly entertaining start to the trilogy. He especially praises its sharp social commentary and skillful horror references.

The critic finds the film a bloody, entertaining tribute to ’90s horror, though its final stretch and open-ended conclusion disappoint. He especially praises how the likable teen characters make their gruesome fates matter.

Sandwell finds the film bloody good fun, despite some frustrations with its pacing and character development. He praises its gory slasher kills and affectionate nods to ’90s horror.