Write a commentI'm not perfect; I've never claimed to be. When I write these reviews, the one thing to take away from them is that these are just my opinion.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don't claim that if I deem something as 'bad" that it will be "bad" for everyone. This is just my experience and everyone's experience is unique to them.
All this to say I was wrong.
In my review of "The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It", I took director Michael Chaves to task, implying (or sometimes flat out saying) that he didn't have a lot of talent. While I stand by the fact that he shouldn't have helmed a "Conjuring" film, I am pleased to say that it appears that he is evolving as a filmmaker.
I definitely didn't have a lot of hope when I heard about the announcement for "The Nun II". I didn't like the first and it was being directed by a guy that I didn't have a lot of faith in. The plot even seemed overly similar to the first. This time instead of investigating a suicide, Sister Irene (Farmiga) investigates the murder of a priest. Wouldn't you know it, The Nun (Aarons) is behind it all. Will Sister Irene triumph over evil?
Sure, but not entirely considering this film is set in the 50s and "The Conjuring 2" doesn't take place until the 70s. So, The Nun is sent away for a bit, potentially called upon at a future date. I feel like there's another "habit" pun in here somewhere. I'll get back to you.
Thankfully, "The Nun II" has a good atmosphere and it has pretty gorgeous cinematography considering what kind of movie it is. There's always the possibility, even within this franchise, that a Hollywood blockbuster could be visually drab. Cinematographer Tristan Nyby ("The Dark and the Wicked") utilizes every trick in the book to transport us to this world. Much of it is highly stylized, but when everything looks as good as this does, it's hard to complain.
Chaves, free of the restraints of a strict COVID shoot, seems to have learned from some of the mistakes of the previous entries in the franchise. The characters are more distinctly drawn, the actors seem engaged and the script, while incredibly silly at times, gives the audience more to grasp onto. As with other entries in this franchise, the best ones focus more on the characters than the scares. This rule of thumb can be applied to films outside of this franchise as well.
I've complained in previous reviews about the predictability of the scares in some of the entries. Some of the sequences in this one show a marked improvement from "The Devil Made Me Do It". Chavez, while certainly not Wan or Sandberg, proves that he can craft a scare. Some of them seem to have had less effort put into them, but when they work, they work well.
The image of The Nun, or Valek as we find out, is an effective one. I still firmly believe that this character was handled the best in "The Conjuring 2". "The Nun II" makes a valiant effort for the crown, but misses the mark. A major issue about The Nun is we don't seem to know that much about her. All that we seemed to need to know about her was explained to us in "The Conjuring 2". Since then, she's had two movies that have been dedicated to her with not much other information added.
Many films over explain and they lose much of the mystery. But, if they were to make another "Nun" film, they would have to explain why she keeps coming back and why she can't be cast out permanently. I'm sure there's some reason that's given in one of her three appearances in the universe, but I feel like it constantly changes. Part of the climax of "The Conjuring 2" was centered around Valek going after Ed and Lorraine casting The Nun out. Yes, that was way out in the timeline and the two "Nun" movies act as prequels, but no one else ever considered doing what Lorraine did? And, if they did, why is Valek still bouncing around, grabbing paintings and spooking everyone out?
Also, how do ghosts travel? Valek has gone from Romania to France and then to England. Does she possess someone that's about to take a flight and then detach once they land? Can she just be conjured by some ritual and zooms through mountains and lakes to get to where they were talking about her? If that's the case, I may need to go through and edit out some of the references to her name. Then again, she could be like Rumplestiltskin where if you say her name, it takes away her power. That's what Lorraine did. But I'm not saying it. It's in print. Does that make a difference? Does any of this matter?
My apologies. I have a tendency to spiral when I'm trying to figure out the logic of certain films.
It's a nasty habit I have to break.
The Nun II (2023)
Directed by Michael Chaves
Cast: Taissa Farmiga, Jonas Bloquet, Storm Reid, Anna Popplewell, Bonnie Aarons
Runtime: 110 minutes
MPAA Rating: R for violent content and some terror
Rating (out of ****): ***
