The Nun II
The biggest advantage of this sequel is that it no longer needs to introduce Valak. The image is already established, the face works, and simply seeing that figure emerge from a dark background still has an effect. That gives the film a powerful starting point: we know exactly what kind of threat we are facing and, even so, it remains unsettling.
Michael Chaves replaces the isolated convent of the first film with somewhat broader spaces, but keeps the religious imagery, corridors, shadows and the school-and-boarding-house atmosphere that works so well for this kind of horror. Children, bedrooms, chapels, dark corners and old buildings provide perfect terrain for any noise or appearance to become threatening.
The film also benefits because Maurice is no longer just another character. Anyone following the saga in order already knows that he is carrying something that should not be there, and that knowledge adds a different layer of tension. The story does not need to explain everything from scratch; simply watching him interact with others creates unease in the background.
Jonas Bloquet works very well precisely because Maurice retains a humanity that makes everything more tragic. He is not merely a vessel for evil. There is warmth, charm and a sense of normality that contrasts with what we know he carries. That contrast gives the film more than a simple chain of scares.
Taissa Farmiga once again carries the story with considerable confidence. Sister Irene is calm, vulnerable and determined at the same time, and Farmiga has enough presence to stand opposite a creature as visually dominant as Valak without disappearing behind it. Her face and reactions give more credibility to the story than many of the script’s mythological explanations.
Visually, The Nun II has several very effective moments. Chaves knows how to use darkness, backgrounds and depth of field to place threats without immediately revealing them. Some images are strong precisely because the audience begins scanning the entire frame before knowing where to look.
That is where the film works best: anticipation. When it trusts atmosphere, a hallway that feels too long, a shape that may be hiding in the background or a silence that lasts one second longer than expected, it is much more effective than when it relies on an automatic jump scare.
The problem is that there are a lot of jump scares. The film wants to keep the audience tense almost constantly, and when the same mechanism is repeated too often, some of the effect wears off. If something suddenly appears every few minutes, the body eventually learns the rhythm.
There is also heavier mythology than in the first film. The franchise keeps expanding Valak’s origins, connections and rules, and not all of that interests me equally. The more a creature that worked so well through pure presence is explained, the greater the risk of stripping away its mystery.
Even so, I think this sequel is better constructed than The Nun. The staging is more confident, the cast is better balanced and the storytelling less rudimentary. It is still a formula film, but the formula is handled with more care.
Watching it within the full chronology also helps because Maurice already carries associations the audience recognizes. That continuity adds tension without turning every connection into an obvious reference.
Valak, of course, remains the main attraction. Bonnie Aarons has such a powerful image that the film can afford to rely on it repeatedly. The risk is obvious: the more often a horror icon appears, the harder it becomes to preserve the mystery. Valak still works here, although the impact is no longer the same as that first major appearance in The Conjuring 2.
It does not reach the level of the best Conjuring films. It lacks James Wan’s precision, the sense of everyday reality and the emotional connection of those entries. But I do think it is one of the stronger spin-offs in the universe, especially because it has a better idea of what to do with its characters and setting.
The Nun II does not reinvent anything, repeats several tricks and occasionally gets lost in its own mythology. But it has effective atmosphere, strong moments of tension, a very convincing Taissa Farmiga and a Valak who can still genuinely scare me. When a sequel manages to keep such an overexposed horror figure unsettling, it is doing something right.
Michael Chaves replaces the isolated convent of the first film with somewhat broader spaces, but keeps the religious imagery, corridors, shadows and the school-and-boarding-house atmosphere that works so well for this kind of horror. Children, bedrooms, chapels, dark corners and old buildings provide perfect terrain for any noise or appearance to become threatening.
The film also benefits because Maurice is no longer just another character. Anyone following the saga in order already knows that he is carrying something that should not be there, and that knowledge adds a different layer of tension. The story does not need to explain everything from scratch; simply watching him interact with others creates unease in the background.
Jonas Bloquet works very well precisely because Maurice retains a humanity that makes everything more tragic. He is not merely a vessel for evil. There is warmth, charm and a sense of normality that contrasts with what we know he carries. That contrast gives the film more than a simple chain of scares.
Taissa Farmiga once again carries the story with considerable confidence. Sister Irene is calm, vulnerable and determined at the same time, and Farmiga has enough presence to stand opposite a creature as visually dominant as Valak without disappearing behind it. Her face and reactions give more credibility to the story than many of the script’s mythological explanations.
Visually, The Nun II has several very effective moments. Chaves knows how to use darkness, backgrounds and depth of field to place threats without immediately revealing them. Some images are strong precisely because the audience begins scanning the entire frame before knowing where to look.
That is where the film works best: anticipation. When it trusts atmosphere, a hallway that feels too long, a shape that may be hiding in the background or a silence that lasts one second longer than expected, it is much more effective than when it relies on an automatic jump scare.
The problem is that there are a lot of jump scares. The film wants to keep the audience tense almost constantly, and when the same mechanism is repeated too often, some of the effect wears off. If something suddenly appears every few minutes, the body eventually learns the rhythm.
There is also heavier mythology than in the first film. The franchise keeps expanding Valak’s origins, connections and rules, and not all of that interests me equally. The more a creature that worked so well through pure presence is explained, the greater the risk of stripping away its mystery.
Even so, I think this sequel is better constructed than The Nun. The staging is more confident, the cast is better balanced and the storytelling less rudimentary. It is still a formula film, but the formula is handled with more care.
Watching it within the full chronology also helps because Maurice already carries associations the audience recognizes. That continuity adds tension without turning every connection into an obvious reference.
Valak, of course, remains the main attraction. Bonnie Aarons has such a powerful image that the film can afford to rely on it repeatedly. The risk is obvious: the more often a horror icon appears, the harder it becomes to preserve the mystery. Valak still works here, although the impact is no longer the same as that first major appearance in The Conjuring 2.
It does not reach the level of the best Conjuring films. It lacks James Wan’s precision, the sense of everyday reality and the emotional connection of those entries. But I do think it is one of the stronger spin-offs in the universe, especially because it has a better idea of what to do with its characters and setting.
The Nun II does not reinvent anything, repeats several tricks and occasionally gets lost in its own mythology. But it has effective atmosphere, strong moments of tension, a very convincing Taissa Farmiga and a Valak who can still genuinely scare me. When a sequel manages to keep such an overexposed horror figure unsettling, it is doing something right.
Mini Review: The biggest advantage of this sequel is that it no longer needs to introduce Valak. The image is already established, the face works, and simply seeing that figure emerge from a dark background still has an effect. That gives the film a powerful starting point: we know exactly what kind of threat we are facing and, even so, it remains unsettling. Michael Chaves replaces the isolated convent of the first film with somewhat broader spaces, but...