The Nun II

In my opinion, the character "The Nun a.k.a (Valak)" was best portrayed in the movie "The Conjuring 2". I didn't like its first solo movie. The atmosphere wasn't bad, but I didn't like it anyway. I didn't like the second movie either. It could be better. In terms of atmosphere, it wasn't as good as the first movie. The plot of the movie was poor. There ara lots of horror movie clichés. There were many jump-scare scenes. I thought it was out of fashion nowadays, but they used it too much in this movie. This spoils the viewing pleasure. There were a few scenes that I liked very much. Even though it was a jump-scare scene, I liked the goat scene. The acting was good, of course, but the weak script. BTW Bonnie Aarons was great again.

So, I was actually quite looking forward to this one. I wasn't expecting much from the original since sequels, prequel's and spinoffs often times are not up to par with their predecessors. However, I was quite pleasantly surprised with the first Nun and still think that it is a wildly underrated horror. So, after viewing this one, I must say that I was pretty disappointed. It was not a bad film by any means, but it did not live up to the quality of the first one and really landed in a very mediocre place.

It had a quick start and didn't waste any time, throwing us into the action. Yet, even then, I stopped and thought "well, that could've been cooler ". This same sentiment persisted throughout the majority of the film. It gave us some fun and creepiness, but then proceeded to move at a snails pace for quite some time. It felt like we were about 45 minutes in until I got any semblance of a real story line or something particularly intriguing. It really felt like they were going through the motions, an outline for a horror movie. As if they were following a map with very similar chain of events as the original.

It is no secret that this franchise loves a jump scare. The first one was full of them, however, it was also balanced out by genuinely creepy and cool effects with a general effective spook factor. This one had a bit of that, but was mostly just riddled with cheap, unnecessary and superfluous jump scares. Even most of the kills, while still entertaining, were pretty basic. At the same time there were also some effective imagery especially in the third act, some gnarly effects, and some pretty awesome stunts that stuck out.

I think my biggest issue with this is that the first one felt very deliberate and purposeful in many ways. It felt planned out and detailed... whereas this one felt like it was thrown together with the very bare minimum they could get away with as far as storyline went. Again, not a bad film, but nowhere near the quality of the first one for me. Would recommend, but not vehemently.

(Also, what's up with all these fake reviews? Weird. Lol)

IG - howlingatthemoonreviews.

My dedication to the horror genre leads me to seeing a lot of films at the cinema that I fully expect to be rubbish. Like the Nun II, which I had very little real interest in watching since I couldn't remember much about the first one, other than the fact that I didn't like it. And for a long time, the film is just as bland and generic as I had imagined it would be, director Michael Chaves taking matters far too seriously, with a dreary pace, gloomy cinematography and all of the religious horror clichés he can cram in.

Then, just as I was about to give up all hope of being entertained, Chaves seems to remember that, hey, horror films can be fun! After the introduction of a demonic goat (Satan himself?), the film really picks up, with action, excitement, and a few well-crafted scares (I think I actually jumped a couple of times, but that was probably down to the extremely loud noises that accompany the jumpy bits). If only there had been some of this liveliness during the earlier parts of the film - The Nun II could have been really good instead of just okay.

My rating: 6/10.

Well, well, well,.... I really like the first Nun....so lets keep this in mind. It was original scary and new. Many times we struggle with sequels and this is no exception. All I remember is maybe Spiderman 2,,can you tell me of another ?Anyway, I wasn't expecting so much so I kinda wasn't that disappointed! It tries to expand the Nun universe but does it work? Is it needed? Ummm.....is it even scary? They tried but there's nothing new here. I dont think the cgi is better here,neither. Yes, we know more about the nun demon ,the actors are doing their best and the cinematography is beautiful but there's something missing here!

Knowing that Ed is present for the exorcism of frenchie and that's technically a pivotal moment in the relationship of Ed and Loraine (according to the films), and the look Irene gives Frenchy at the end of the film makes me certain we're due for a 3rd Nun film. I had a feeling this movie was going to be a bit stale. The design and appearance of the Nun creeping in dark shadowy halls in the film has lost its shock factor. And the increased exposure of the creature has decreased the menacing creepiness of the Nun. It always was more terrifying when all you were able to see was a silhouette of the Nun and the pale face. I give them credit as they've built a pretty solid story building to the exorcism of Frenchy. They've also found creative ways of adding these religious relics to the storyline as weapons against the demon. When they first released Annabelle people were really creeped out by the dolls lore. In 2023 it's looked at as a new age Chucky doll attached to a major film franchise. It feels like the Conjuring Universe is building to something huge. I have said for years it's building to a Amityville Film as a grand finale. But after this film and the inevitable third film, it's clear that the franchise might want to find a new horrific creature from the cases of the Warren's to add to the library of horror.