Critics’ reviews

Freaks (1932)

10 reviews from 10 publications. Critics’ score 74: 7 positive, 1 mixed, 2 negative.

Back to our review of Freaks

74
Positive
7
Mixed
1
Negative
2

Most critics respond warmly to Freaks, finding compassion for its circus performers beneath the horror. Praise centres on Browning’s attention to the carnival community and his challenge to conventional ideas of beauty and abnormality. The performers’ everyday lives matter to these reviews as much as the film’s capacity to disturb. Several critics single out the wedding feast, with The AV Club particularly praising the sound and chant for making the scene emotionally complex as well as unsettling.

The spread of opinion is wide, and even favourable reviews question whether the film’s humanity sits comfortably with its exploitative aspects. The strongest dissent comes from Variety and Eye for Film: the former admires the direction but finds the story unengaging and the romance unconvincing; the latter finds the dialogue stilted and the performances awkward. The central disagreement concerns whether compassion outweighs the discomfort, though the negative reviews also identify basic dramatic weaknesses.

Slant Magazine
29 October 2003 · ★★★★/4 · Ed Gonzalez
100

The review argues that the film’s significance lies in its humanity, not merely its shock value. It praises Browning’s compassionate portrayal of the circus performers and his challenge to conventional ideas of beauty and abnormality.

Read the full review →
Time Out
7 June 2015 · ★★★★★ · Tom Huddleston
100

The review calls the film heartbreaking and empathetic, and an unforgettable achievement. It singles out its compassionate portrayal of circus life.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
8 July 1932 · John C. Mosher
85*

Mosher calls the film a remarkable, chilling gem, while warning that it is not for everyone. He especially singles out the wedding feast, where the circus performers toast the bride and promise to accept her.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · Alan Jones
80

Jones calls the film a deserved cult masterpiece, both nightmarish and compassionate. He praises how Browning immerses viewers in the carnival community before chillingly showing the consequences of betrayal.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
14 June 2015 · Mark Kermode
80*

Kermode regards the film as a modern classic and argues that Browning’s sympathies are clear. He singles out Johnny Eck’s remarkable agility and the respectful, admiring effect of his performance.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Kim Newman
75*

Newman finds the film an oddly charming, one-of-a-kind masterpiece, despite its disturbing ending. He praises its fondness for the carnival performers, while noting that the finale turns them into the monsters society expects.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
29 March 2010 · Mike D'Angelo
75*

D’Angelo finds the film’s impact unforgettable despite its troubling, exploitative aspects. He particularly praises how Browning’s sound design and the chant deepen the wedding feast’s unsettling emotional complexity.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
30 October 1995 · MARK CHALON SMITH
65*

The critic finds the film macabre and disturbing, but more humane than its reputation suggests. The review praises Browning’s sympathetic portrayal of the circus performers and finds their revenge curiously satisfying.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1931 · Variety Staff
35*

The review finds the film handsomely made but says its story fails to hold interest. It praises the direction while criticizing the overly fantastic romance and several performances.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
7 August 2001 · festival review · Keith Hennessey Brown
35*

The critic finds the film unpleasant and heavy-going, though worth a look for viewers interested in exploitation cinema. They single out its stilted dialogue and awkward performances as reasons the experience is challenging.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate