Passenger

Passenger Movie Review

Studio: Paramount
Released: May 22, 2026
Updated: 3 months ago
2.6
Overall review score
295
Review insights
43
Scored features
36
Expert reviews

Bottom Line

Choose Passenger for polished night-road atmosphere, likable leads, and several clever scare set pieces. Skip it if you need original plotting, developed characters, coherent monster rules, or a satisfying finale.

Best for

Best for casual horror viewers who want a fast, atmospheric road movie with frequent jump scares, likable leads, and several visually inventive sequences.

Not for

Not for viewers seeking original mythology, deep characterization, restrained scares, consistent rules, or a memorable and satisfying ending.

Verdict

Passenger is a visually polished but narratively weak road-horror ride. André Øvredal and cinematographer Federico Verardi turn parking lots, dark highways, projector light, and the cramped van into expressive sources of dread, while Jacob Scipio and Lou Llobell often supply enough warmth to keep the central couple watchable. The opening and a handful of later sequences can be genuinely tense. The problems are everything connecting those highlights: thin characterization, exposition-heavy dialogue, inconsistent supernatural rules, repetitive jump scares, and a broadly disliked church climax. Christopher Young’s score and the nighttime craft give it more personality than routine studio horror, but the script never develops its van-life premise or folklore into a convincing story. It is best approached as a disposable scare delivery system rather than a deep or original horror film.

Feature Scorecards

Summary

43 reviewed features
  • Positive 3.5-4.4
    10 (23%)
  • Neutral 2.5-3.4
    10 (23%)
  • Negative 1.5-2.4
    21 (49%)
  • Very negative below 1.5
    2 (5%)

Pros highlights

  • 3.9
    14 reviews strong consensus
    visual style: 3.9, 14 reviews, strong consensus
    The movie’s strongest identity comes from red lights, deep shadows, projector images, rotating camera moves, and readable nighttime compositions. Even harsh reviews acknowledge striking visual ideas.
  • 4.1
    12 reviews strong consensus
    directing quality: 4.1, 12 reviews, strong consensus
    André Øvredal’s command of light, timing, camera movement, and spatial tension repeatedly elevates the material. Even negative reviews tend to find his set-piece direction more accomplished than the script.
  • 4.0
    10 reviews moderate consensus
    cinematography: 4.0, 10 reviews, moderate consensus
    Night roads, parking lots, headlights, shadows, and cramped van interiors are photographed with unusual clarity and atmosphere. The visual craft is one of the film’s most consistent strengths.
  • 3.6
    9 reviews low consensus
    cast chemistry: 3.6, 9 reviews, low consensus
    Many reviewers find Scipio and Llobell likable, supportive, and believable together, which helps carry the movie. Others see the pairing as bland or unconvincing.
  • 3.7
    8 reviews low consensus
    acting performance: 3.7, 8 reviews, low consensus
    The lead performances divide opinion, but the stronger notices praise their grounded reactions, natural charm, and ability to keep a thin story watchable. Harsher takes call the acting flat or unconvincing.
  • 4.1
    4 reviews strong consensus
    score quality: 4.1, 4 reviews, strong consensus
    Christopher Young’s score is repeatedly praised as restrained, fearsome, and effective. It supports the road-at-night atmosphere without overwhelming the strongest scenes.

Cons highlights

  • 2.7
    29 reviews low consensus
    scares: 2.7, 29 reviews, low consensus
    The opening, projector scene, and rotating parking-lot sequence earn substantial praise, and several viewers found the film gripping. The heavy reliance on predictable, loud jump scares sharply divides opinion.
  • 1.8
    22 reviews strong consensus
    story quality: 1.8, 22 reviews, strong consensus
    The road-haunting premise has a strong foundation, but most reviewers find the finished narrative generic, underdeveloped, or poorly conceived. Standout scenes rarely combine into a satisfying whole.
  • 2.0
    20 reviews low consensus
    originality: 2.0, 20 reviews, low consensus
    The road setting offers a modest twist, yet the plot follows a familiar curse-and-exposition formula almost beat for beat. Predictability is one of the most repeated complaints.
  • 1.8
    18 reviews moderate consensus
    ending satisfaction: 1.8, 18 reviews, moderate consensus
    The desert-church climax is the most consistent disappointment. Reviewers call it generic, silly, rushed, or inconsistent with the threat established earlier.
  • 1.8
    14 reviews strong consensus
    world-building: 1.8, 14 reviews, strong consensus
    The hobo code, Saint Christopher imagery, van-life folklore, and demon rules never fully cohere. The antagonist becomes less frightening as the movie explains more while contradicting itself.
  • 1.6
    13 reviews strong consensus
    character development: 1.6, 13 reviews, strong consensus
    Tyler and Maddie are widely seen as thinly written, with backstory and relationship conflict arriving too late or too mechanically. Several critics struggled to care about their survival.

Cast & Creators

  • Director
    3.8
    18 reviews moderate consensus
    André Øvredal: 3.8, 18 reviews, moderate consensus
    Øvredal’s command of timing, darkness, camera movement, and spatial tension is the film’s clearest strength. Even critics who dislike the movie say his craft produces several memorable set pieces.
  • Cinematographer
    4.3
    4 reviews strong consensus
    Federico Verardi: 4.3, 4 reviews, strong consensus
    Verardi’s cinematography is repeatedly singled out for expressive darkness, clear geography, and menacing road imagery that never becomes visually muddy.
  • Composer
    4.1
    4 reviews strong consensus
    Christopher Young: 4.1, 4 reviews, strong consensus
    Young’s score is described as restrained, fizzy, fearsome, and highly effective at supporting the road-at-night atmosphere.
  • Maddie
    3.4
    15 reviews low consensus
    Lou Llobell: 3.4, 15 reviews, low consensus
    Llobell earns frequent praise for naturalism, likability, and carrying difficult exposition with conviction. Negative reviews blame the underwritten character more often than her performance.
  • Editor
    4.5
    1 review
    Martin Bernfeld: 4.5, 1 review
    Bernfeld’s timing on the film’s best jump scares is singled out as exceptionally precise.
  • Tyler
    3.3
    14 reviews low consensus
    Jacob Scipio: 3.3, 14 reviews, low consensus
    Scipio is often praised for grounded reactions, charm, and supportive chemistry with Lou Llobell. A smaller group finds the character too thin or the pairing unconvincing.

Compared With Category Average

Compared with other Movies, this product is above average in violence level, makeup quality, near average in suspense, directing quality, below average in value for money, drama quality, world-building.

Comparison summary

43 compared features
  • Above average 0.4+ pts higher
    2 (5%)
  • Same as average within 0.3 pts
    6 (14%)
  • Below average 0.4+ pts lower
    35 (81%)

Largest category differences

Attribute This product Category average Difference
value for money 1.0 3.4 -2.4
drama quality 1.0 3.4 -2.4
world-building 1.8 3.8 -1.9
emotional impact 1.8 3.9 -2.1
message quality 1.5 3.7 -2.2
theme depth 1.8 3.7 -1.8
rewatch value 1.7 3.6 -1.9
story quality 1.8 3.2 -1.4

Consider This Instead

If you want better drama quality

Choose Night Nurse. It scores 5.0 vs 1.0 for drama quality, with a 3.4 overall score.

Compare

If you want better value for money

Choose Obsession. It scores 5.0 vs 1.0 for value for money, with a 4.3 overall score.

Compare

If you want better rewatch value

Choose Wicked: For Good. It scores 5.0 vs 1.7 for rewatch value, with a 3.5 overall score.

Compare

Compared in Reviews

Products reviewers directly compared with this model, grouped into quick takeaways.

Obsession

  • Worse: suspense and jolts Passenger is judged more effective than Obsession at generating suspense and genuine jolts.

The Hitcher

  • Better: monster menace The Passenger is compared with The Hitcher but considered much less frightening.

The Mandalorian and Grogu

  • Worse: entertainment value The reviewer finds Passenger substantially more entertaining than The Mandalorian and Grogu.

FAQ

Is Passenger actually scary?

The opening, projector sequence, and rotating parking-lot scene are widely praised, but the heavy use of predictable jump scares divides viewers. Experienced horror fans are much less impressed than casual audiences.

Are the lead performances good?

Jacob Scipio and Lou Llobell are often considered likable, natural, and believable together. Some critics still find the characters too thinly written for the performances to create much emotional investment.

Is the story original?

The van-life setting and several visual scare ideas feel fresh, but the cursed-entity plot, exposition structure, and final showdown are repeatedly described as formulaic.

Does the ending work?

The climax is the clearest point of disagreement only in degree: most reviewers find it generic, silly, rushed, or inconsistent with the Passenger's earlier power.

Is it worth seeing in theaters?

It may suit viewers who enjoy loud, straightforward popcorn horror and atmospheric set pieces. Those seeking deeper characters, coherent mythology, or strong value are generally advised to wait for streaming or skip it.

Sample Expert Reviews We Analyzed

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

Video Reviews

Article Reviews

pluggedin.com

‘Passenger’ feels like a series of online horror shorts all tied together with a gossamer narrative thread.

Review score
2.0
keithandthemovies.com

Passenger" is the latest feature from Norwegian filmmaker André Øvredal. It's the follow-up to his criminally underrated 2023 film "The Last...

Review score
3.1
crypticrock.com

André Øvredal's new Horror film Passenger hit theaters on May 22, 2026. Read all about it on Cryptic Rock Magazine.

Review score
2.8

Top Movies to Consider

#1 You Can See Everything
4.7

Choose this inventive, unsettling documentary for fearless questioning, dark humor, and unpredictable storytelling. Skip it if you want a short, straightforward exposé with definitive answers.

Pros: originality, humor

#2 Chronovisor
4.7

Best for a hypnotic, bookish mystery with tactile visuals and cerebral chills. Skip it if reading-heavy, attention-demanding storytelling sounds more exhausting than exciting.

Pros: Atmosphere, cinematography

Cons: audience appeal

#3 Remake
4.6

Best for an intimate, searching documentary that rewards focused attention and invites discussion. Skip it when devastating grief, addiction footage, and unresolved family tensions would be too much.

Pros: emotional impact, theme depth

#4 Halloween
4.6

Best for patient suspense, an unforgettable score, and an unsettling masked killer. Skip it for very young children or if you want to avoid intense scares; its restrained kills also...

Pros: directing quality, score quality

Cons: message quality