Fear Street: Prom Queen – Gore without the glory

There are two disappointments in the life of a horror movie fan. One is when a great movie franchise is marred by a subpar sequel; another is when a promising slasher fails to shine. 

In the summer of 2021, Netflix's 'Fear Street' trilogy, based on RL Stine's book series of the same name, carved a bloody niche in the horror landscape, delivering a thrilling blend of nostalgia, inventive kills, and interconnected storytelling across three distinct eras. 

Directed by Leigh Janiak, those films—set in 1994, 1978, and 1666—created a world of teen horror that paid homage to slasher classics while introducing a fresh mythology tied to the cursed town of Shadyside. 

Four years later, 'Fear Street: Prom Queen', directed by Matt Palmer and released on 23 May 2025, attempts to resurrect that magic with a standalone tale set in 1988 but fails regrettably. 

'Fear Street: Prom Queen' is not a terrible film, but it is an uninspired one. While it has moments of fun and a few standout performances, it ultimately fails to live up to the expectations set by its predecessors. For casual horror fans, it might provide a few entertaining moments, but for those who loved the 'Fear Street' trilogy, it's a frustratingly mediocre entry.

While it captures some of the retro aesthetic and gore that fans crave, it falls short of the trilogy's original charm, resulting in a mixed bag that's equal parts nostalgic fun and frustrating letdown.

Screenplay and storytelling

Set in Shadyside High during prom season, the film centres around a group of teens facing the fierce race for prom queen. The plot follows a scrappy underdog, played with doe-eyed resilience by India Fowler, who finds herself unexpectedly thrust into the spotlight as a prom queen candidate. 

Her rival, a queen bee portrayed by Fina Strazza, leads a clique of "it girls" with a vicious streak, while a masked killer in a red raincoat begins picking off the competition.

The plot is a straightforward whodunit, leaning heavily on the tropes of '80s slasher films like 'I Know What You Did Last Summer'. 

It's a familiar setup: a high school teeming with rivalries, a dance drenched in neon lights and synth beats, and a killer whose motives are shrouded in mystery. The story introduces a slew of suspects—everyone from a creepy janitor to a stern vice principal (Lili Taylor)—while hinting at lingering tensions from the town's troubled past. 

The screenplay is where 'Prom Queen' stumbles most noticeably. Palmer and McLeary adapt Stine's novel with a focus on streamlined slasher thrills, but the result feels formulaic. The story sets up a promising mystery, with red herrings aplenty, but the pacing is uneven, rushing through character development to get to the kills. 

The film's 90-minute runtime feels both bloated and hurried, with subplots about family secrets and town history introduced but never fully explored. Unlike the rest of the trilogy, which balanced horror with coming-of-age themes, 'Prom Queen' leans too heavily on genre conventions, sacrificing emotional depth for gore.

The screenplay's biggest sin is its predictability. Fans of the 'Fear Street' books may appreciate the nods to the source material, but the twists are telegraphed early, robbing the climax of impact.

Unlike the trilogy, which wove a rich supernatural curse across centuries, 'Prom Queen' opts for a more grounded approach, but this simplicity sometimes feels like a missed opportunity to deepen the 'Fear Street' universe.

Moreover, the film's attempts at deeper themes—such as the toxic culture of high school popularity contests—feel half-baked. Unlike 'Fear Street Part One: 1994', which cleverly explored class divisions and generational trauma, Prom Queen barely scratches the surface of its social commentary. 

Dialogues and atmosphere

Another of the film's biggest weaknesses is its dialogue. Characters frequently announce their thoughts and motivations in a way that feels unnatural, as if the script were written with distracted viewers in mind. 

Lori's opening monologue, where she introduces herself and her rivals, is particularly clunky, setting the tone for a film that prefers telling over showing. The exchanges between the prom queen contenders are filled with predictable insults and forced banter, making it difficult to invest in their relationships.

That said, there are moments of sharp humour, particularly in the interactions between Lori and her best friend Megan (Suzanna Son). Megan, a horror-obsessed prankster, provides much-needed levity, and her dry wit makes her one of the film's more memorable characters. 

Unfortunately, even her dialogue suffers from occasional awkwardness, with lines that feel more like placeholders than genuine conversation. 

The adults, played by veterans like Katherine Waterston and Chris Klein, are saddled with expository lines that do little to flesh out their roles, leaving their talents underutilised. While the dialogue captures the era's vibe in fleeting moments, it lacks the spark and personality that made the trilogy's characters so memorable.

As per the visuals, cinematographer Mark Gyori aims for an '80s aesthetic, with neon-lit hallways and a prom drenched in pinks and blues. There are flashes of visual flair, like grainy camcorder footage that briefly captures the era's texture, but the cinematography often feels flat. 

While there are a few creative moments—such as a severed head appearing during a prom dance-off—the overall execution lacks the visceral impact of classic slashers. 

Overall, it lacks the trilogy's inventive energy, memorable characters, and cohesive lore. The predictable plot and lacklustre killer reveal have also drawn criticisms. The absence of Janiak's direction is keenly felt, as Palmer struggles to replicate her command of tone and suspense.

Would I recommend it? Only if you're in the mood for a mindless slasher with a retro aesthetic. Otherwise, you're better off revisiting the original trilogy.