Backrooms

Backrooms Movie Review

Brand: A24
Released: May 7, 2026
Updated: 3 weeks ago
4.2
Overall review score
308
Review evidence points
40
Scored features
53
Expert reviews

Bottom Line

Choose it for immersive liminal dread, extraordinary sets, oppressive sound, and committed performances. Skip it if you need fast pacing, fully developed characters, clear answers, or a conventionally satisfying ending.

Best for

Best for liminal-horror fans, viewers who enjoy analog textures and slow-building dread, and audiences willing to engage with ambiguous psychological themes.

Not for

Skip it if you prefer fast-moving plots, frequent jump scares, fully explained mythology, or endings that provide clear narrative closure.

Verdict

Backrooms succeeds most completely as an audiovisual nightmare. Its enormous yellow sets, warped furniture, analog textures, fluorescent hum, and patient camera work turn ordinary commercial spaces into something oppressive and unfamiliar. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Renate Reinsve give the abstract concept emotional weight, while Kane Parsons directs with unusual confidence and a strong instinct for withholding threats. The tradeoff is a conventional feature narrative that cannot always match the purity of the premise. Character motivations can feel thin, the deliberate pacing will test viewers who need constant incident, and the late explanations, monster imagery, and climax divide critics sharply. Even with those weaknesses, the film remains a distinctive, ambitious adaptation whose atmosphere, craft, and lingering imagery outweigh its uneven storytelling.

Feature Scorecards

Summary

40 reviewed features
  • Very positive 4.5-5.0
    21 (53%)
  • Positive 3.5-4.4
    13 (33%)
  • Neutral 2.5-3.4
    5 (13%)
  • Negative 1.5-2.4
    1 (3%)

Pros

  • 4.9
    22 reviews strong consensus
    production design: 4.9, 22 reviews, strong consensus
    The vast yellow labyrinth is the clearest consensus standout, praised as tactile, uncanny, claustrophobic, and often the film’s real star. Physical sets, warped furniture, and impossible architecture turn bland commercial spaces into nightmare imagery.
  • 4.6
    20 reviews strong consensus
    visual style: 4.6, 20 reviews, strong consensus
    The mix of harsh yellow lighting, analog textures, found footage, forced perspective, and surreal spatial design gives the film a distinctive identity. Reviewers admired how ordinary rooms become both familiar and deeply wrong.
  • 4.5
    31 reviews strong consensus
    acting performance: 4.5, 31 reviews, strong consensus
    The performances are a major strength, with Chiwetel Ejiofor and Renate Reinsve repeatedly praised for grounding the surreal material in sadness, fear, and human vulnerability. A few critics noted accent or script limitations, but the acting consistently elevates thin passages.
  • 4.6
    18 reviews strong consensus
    directing quality: 4.6, 18 reviews, strong consensus
    Kane Parsons is widely praised for remarkably assured control of mood, spatial tension, and visual horror in his feature debut. Criticism centers on later over-explanation and a few overreaching narrative choices rather than his filmmaking instincts.
  • 4.7
    12 reviews strong consensus
    suspense: 4.7, 12 reviews, strong consensus
    Long corridors, distant noises, hidden figures, and unstable camera movement sustain a persistent sense of danger. Reviewers repeatedly praised the film for making anticipation and uncertainty more frightening than overt attacks.
  • 4.8
    7 reviews strong consensus
    sound design: 4.8, 7 reviews, strong consensus
    Fluorescent hums, metallic groans, distant impacts, and muted ambient noise make the environment physically oppressive. The soundscape is repeatedly cited as essential to the film’s tension and spatial dread.

Cons

  • 2.3
    3 reviews strong consensus
    action sequences: 2.3, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    The film is strongest during restrained exploration rather than overt action. Several reviewers criticized the third-act chase and explicit climax as overblown, generic, or less frightening than the slow build.
  • 2.8
    3 reviews strong consensus
    dialogue quality: 2.8, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    Dialogue is uneven: psychological exchanges can clarify the themes, but several reviewers found scenes mandatory, awkward, or unintentionally strange. The actors often make the lines work better than the script does.
  • 2.9
    13 reviews strong consensus
    plot clarity: 2.9, 13 reviews, strong consensus
    The film intentionally withholds answers, and that ambiguity can be intriguing and discussion-provoking. It also frustrates viewers when lore becomes either too opaque or too heavily explained, especially late in the story.
  • 3.0
    17 reviews low consensus
    ending satisfaction: 3.0, 17 reviews, low consensus
    The ending is the most divisive element. Some found the final image haunting, open-ended, or cathartic, while many called the climax anticlimactic, overly conventional, confusing, or obvious sequel bait.
  • 3.3
    12 reviews low consensus
    story quality: 3.3, 12 reviews, low consensus
    The premise and atmosphere are stronger than the conventional narrative holding them together. Some reviewers found the story emotionally coherent and compelling, while others saw an underbaked framework stretched around a powerful visual concept.
  • 3.4
    9 reviews low consensus
    screenplay quality: 3.4, 9 reviews, low consensus
    The screenplay earns praise for economical exposition, psychological ideas, and character interiority in its best passages. Its weaker sections rely on clunky explanations, uneven dialogue, and late lore that can flatten the mystery.

Cast & Creators

  • Production Designer
    5.0
    8 reviews strong consensus
    Danny Vermette: 5.0, 8 reviews, strong consensus
    Vermette’s production design receives near-unanimous praise for turning the yellow rooms into vast, tactile, claustrophobic spaces filled with warped furniture and impossible geometry. Many reviewers call the setting the film’s true star.
  • Director
    4.5
    12 reviews strong consensus
    Kane Parsons: 4.5, 12 reviews, strong consensus
    Reviewers see Parsons as a strikingly assured young director with exceptional instincts for atmosphere, spatial terror, and visual storytelling. Even critics of the over-explained or overstuffed final act regard his voice and ambition as unmistakable.
  • Clark
    4.8
    6 reviews strong consensus
    Chiwetel Ejiofor: 4.8, 6 reviews, strong consensus
    Ejiofor is repeatedly praised for making Clark wounded, frustrating, relatable, and increasingly obsessive without losing emotional credibility. His intensity helps anchor the film when the plot becomes abstract.
  • Mary
    4.5
    6 reviews strong consensus
    Renate Reinsve: 4.5, 6 reviews, strong consensus
    Reinsve brings controlled anxiety, bruised sadness, and convincing primal fear to Mary, often communicating more through restraint than screaming. A few reviewers felt the screenplay or occasional accent issues limited her.
  • Actor
    4.5
    3 reviews strong consensus
    Mark Duplass: 4.5, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    Duplass makes a brief but memorable contribution, deepening the mystery through his cryptic supporting presence. Reviewers describe the turn as stellar or notably effective.
  • Cinematographer
    4.8
    2 reviews limited evidence
    Jeremy Cox: 4.8, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    Cox’s cinematography helps create the oppressive yellow light and disorienting spatial language that make the rooms feel both expansive and enclosing.

Compared With Category Average

Compared with other Movies, this product is above average in CGI quality, runtime, rewatch value, near average in scares, audience appeal, below average in action sequences, ending satisfaction.

Comparison summary

40 compared features
  • Above average 0.4+ pts higher
    31 (78%)
  • Same as average within 0.3 pts
    7 (18%)
  • Below average 0.4+ pts lower
    2 (5%)

Largest category differences

Attribute This product Category average Difference
CGI quality 5.0 2.3 +2.7
runtime 4.5 2.7 +1.8
rewatch value 5.0 3.5 +1.5
production design 4.9 4.0 +0.9
suspense 4.7 3.6 +1.1
action sequences 2.3 3.6 -1.2
realism 4.5 3.3 +1.2
editing quality 4.5 3.3 +1.2

Consider This Instead

If you want better dialogue quality

Choose Exit 8. It scores 4.5 vs 2.8 for dialogue quality, with a 4.2 overall score.

Compare

If you want better audience appeal

Choose Leviticus. It scores 4.5 vs 3.8 for audience appeal, with a 4.2 overall score.

Compare

If you want better action sequences

Choose The Furious. It scores 4.9 vs 2.3 for action sequences, with a 4.0 overall score.

Compare

If you want better story quality

Choose Rose of Nevada. It scores 4.6 vs 3.3 for story quality, with a 4.5 overall score.

Compare

FAQ

Is Backrooms genuinely scary?

It is strongest as a slow, oppressive form of horror built on empty spaces, distant sounds, and uncertainty. The scares are usually sparse and effective, though some reviewers found the later creature reveals less frightening.

Do I need to know the YouTube series first?

No. Multiple reviewers said the film works for newcomers, while existing fans receive additional lore, visual callbacks, and found-footage connections.

Is the movie slow?

Yes, it uses a deliberate slow-burn pace with long exploratory passages. That patience builds dread for many viewers but may frustrate anyone who needs frequent plot turns or action.

Are the performances good?

The acting is one of the strongest areas. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Renate Reinsve are widely praised for giving emotional credibility to characters whose writing can sometimes feel thin.

Does the ending explain the Backrooms?

Only partly. The conclusion preserves significant ambiguity, but its mix of explanation, monster imagery, and sequel possibilities is the most divisive part of the film.

Sample Expert Reviews We Analyzed

These are a few of the reviews included in our analysis.

Video Reviews

Article Reviews

thetraverstake.com

Scary as hell doesn’t begin to describe the horror facing Renate Reinsve and Chiwetel Ejiofer in the claustrophobic thriller of the summer.

Review score
4.3
reelviews.net

Calling Backrooms "horror" is probably amisnomer. Although there are horror elements to be found in Kane Parsons'feature debut, this is more...

Review score
3.8

Top Movies to Consider

#1 Remake
4.8

Best for a profound, formally inventive meditation on grief, memory, and the ethics of filming family. Skip it if intensely personal addiction material, a 114-minute runtime, or occasional repetition will...

Pros: plot originality, ending satisfaction

Cons: runtime, pacing

#3 Mary Oliver: Saved by the Beauty of the World
4.7

Best for a tender, accessible portrait that lets Oliver’s poetry, friends, and archival voice carry the experience. Skip it if you want a brisk, deeply investigative biography; the calm rhythm...

Pros: romance quality, faithfulness to source material

Cons: none

#4 The Invite
4.5

Best for razor-sharp adult comedy, exceptional ensemble work, and a surprisingly moving marriage story. Skip it if talk-heavy chamber pieces, explicit relationship discussions, or an occasionally intrusive string score wear...

Pros: plot originality, lead performance

Cons: runtime, score quality