As I'm writing this, The Nun lies still very fresh in my memory from watching it in theaters just about an hour ago. Unfortunately, I have very little nice things to say about this film, but nonetheless (or should I say nuntheless) I think it's important to bring up all aspects of a film in a review - both good and bad. With that said - let's dive into it!
First off, as a fan of both "The Conjuring" films, I - like many others - was very hyped to go see this very much anticipated film. I wish I could say that maybe it was because of the hype that was building up towards it's release that made it disappointing, that it was still good, but just not able to live up to it's hype, but I'm afraid that's just part of it.
Ever heard the expression "show don't tell"? Well, this film is the opposite of that. From the very beginning the writers feels the need to tell everything and show very little, meaning that I, as a viewer, have very little room to build my own interpretation and guesses about where the plot is heading.
From the very beginning we are entering a scene with this demon - Valak - and the only two nuns left at a Romanian convent, or abbey. And right off the bat I can't help but question the film maker's choice here - why, for the love of authenticity, are the Romanian nuns, in a Romanian convent, in Romania speaking English to each other?? It doesn't make any sense! The film actually loses a lot of it's credibility because of that; I can't possibly believe that the film is telling me the truth when presented with such a contradiction. The story, sadly, becomes unbelievable before it even starts.
Next, the nun who ends up biting the dust in the beginning is explicitly telling the other nun that the demon needs to possess a human soul to free itself. Upon receiving this information from the dying nun, the other nun proceeds to commit suicide before the demon can get to and possess her. Why the demon does not possess the first nun, but instead kills her and goes after the second nun remains unclear throughout the rest of the film.
What follows are 1 hour and 36 minutes sets of three's: explanatory conversation; dragging; jump scare; repeat! It's very tiring to be subjected to the same scene in different settings over and over again. "Searching with a light in the forest, music stops, jump scare". "Searching with a light in the halls of the convent, music stops, jumps scare". "Walking around with a light in the supply cellar, music stops, jump scare". That's basically how the movie is structured. There's no room to wonder about the solving of the mysteries of the plot (I'm not even sure there is a mystery or anything to solve since the one nun in the beginning already explained everything to us (in English too, may I remind you of)).
Now, if you remember from the second film in the franchise, "The Conjuring 2", you can control the demon by knowing it's name, right? "Valak" that is. Well, they figure out the demons name within (what I believe to be) the first 30 minutes of the film, but of course that has no effect whatsoever. And neither do they adress why it has no effect (they don't even mention anything about the controlling of the demon by the use of it's name. I tell you, if I had been working as a writer on the franchise I would've killed off Lorraine and Ed in the "Conjuring 2" as a result of they never finding out the demon's name and then making "The Nun" about finding out it's name and not finding the ridiculous "Blood of Christ" (that's never really explained either)). This inconsistency can be found throughout the film. They just jump (scare) right over plot-holes without even trying to fill them with substantial story structure.
Next I'd like to discuss the actual atmosphere that surrounds the film, the overarching mood that serves to capture it's essence. Is it a horror or a comedy? Because they seem to not be able to make up their minds about this. The scariest parts of the film are instantly followed by a cheeky comment from one of the characters; not just once, not twice, but a lot! Sometimes it works, but equal amount of the time it doesn't. And why do this? To lighten the mood for us, the audience? We don't need mood-lightening in horror films - what we need is suspense! But "The Nun" fails to do this. Horror films are supposed to keep you on the edge of your seat with your hands covering your eyes! They are supposed to make your heart beat faster and maybe even force your body to produce a little bit of adrenaline. Instead "The Nun" follows it's darkest bits with it's lightest; to serve what purpose? It's just serves to further create an unbelievable and contradictory story. In my opinion it works against the core purpose of any horror film - to inflict horror in the audience.
A couple more things before I move on to what I think is good about the film. The hallucinations: It turns out that Irene is just hallucinating about the nuns in the convent during the first hour and twenty minutes of the film. Okey? So... what does the film makers want me to do with that information? It's not like it changes the story or anything - no wait! That's right - it leads to the realisation that the nun who commits suicide in the beginning of the film does it as a sacrifice so that the demon can't possess her and set itself free. That's why! But wait... if that's the great turning-point realisation of the film - why is it explained by the dying nun in the very first godforsaken five minutes of the film!? We already know that's why the other nun killed herself! How could the film makers make such a huge blunder??
Second to last (before I get into the good aspects of the film): Why does Father Burke have to tell Irene about the Mother Mary statue that's reflecting this absolutely ridiculous stream of light off of it's finger? And he points it out to her within less than 10 seconds of entering the room. I'm going to recall the films "tell don't show" policy here. Why can't we, the audience, get a chance to discover it for ourselves through Irene's perspective before Father Burke decides to point it out? After the disappointing revelation about (the already known to us) nun's death, this feels like it is supposed to be the pinnacle turning-point of the film and instead it is eschewed by a mere impatient "hey look!". I feel like because it's her visions - it's her discovery to make. It would at least serve the story better, in my opinion.
Last thing before getting into the good bits of the film. The showdown: why is a mighty demon using it's mere hands to strangle a girl? Earlier in the film the demon showcases it's supernatural talents by burying Father Burke and filling the grave with 12 cubic feet of hard packed dirt instantaneously without even touching him. So why use it's hands now? Wouldn't it be easier to just put the girl seven feet under the surface (they were in a pool of water for some reason) and drop a stone on-top of her or something? Once again, the story is not believable.
Now, finally, I can talk about what I actually like about the film. First off - the actors. The actors are actually quite remarkable in this film, especially Taissa Farmiga who portrays Sister Irene. I've said this before in this review (if you remember) that the story is not believable in the slightest, which I still hold to be true, however - the actors did a very believable job with an unbelievable script. It sounds paradoxical, I know, but I can't possibly attribute the films unbelievability to the actors - they actually made the movie semi-watchable! Second, I enjoyed how they tied it all together at the end with the lecture from the first film "The Conjuring". It almost gave me goosebumps. With that said it is still a poor consolation for what is simply a bad film.
I can't possibly cover all my thoughts in one review - I could go on for days. But to sum it all up: there's no substance to the story whatsoever. It's simply not believable. The jump scares from dead nuns, snakes and various dead, tangible things are just empty threats - they never cause any real harm and only serves as time-fillers in a story that's lacking just that - story. After a while (sooner than after a while really) you get used to them and you anticipate them. The story was the one factor that broke this film. It had every possibility to succeed, but unfortunately the writers made bad decision after bad decision and the film suffered as result. Without taking anything away from the actors' performances, I'd like to conclude this review by saying that this film could have been a hell of a lot better.
0 out of 0 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends