The Exorcist: Believer (2023)

DIRECTED BY

David Gordon Green

STARRING

Leslie Odom Jr. - Victor Fielding

Ann Dowd - Ann

Jennifer Nettles - Miranda

Norbert Leo Butz - Tony

Lidya Jewett - Angela Fielding

Olivia Marcum - Katherine

Ellen Burstyn - Chris MacNeil

Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Possession/Demons

Running Time - 111 Minutes

PLOT

Since the death of his wife 12 years ago, Victor Fielding has raised their daughter, Angela on his own. But when Angela and her friend Katherine disappear in the woods, only to return three days later with no memory of what happened to them, it unleashes a chain of events that will force Victor to confront the nadir of evil and, in his terror and desperation, seek out the only person alive who has witnessed anything like it before: Chris MacNeil.

REVIEW

Fifty years ago, a William Peter Blatty bestselling novel called The Exorcist was adapted to movie screens by William Friedkin. THE EXORCIST scared the bejesus out of people, it made tons of money and it racked up a bunch of award nominations - making it one of the first horror films to do so. It has maintained its legacy as not only one of the best horror films to ever exist, but a masterpiece of cinema, period. 

With every great success, there’s always a follow up. From good continuations to the original story [THE EXORCIST III, the FOX television show] to not-so-good ones [EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC and those two prequels I can barely remember], there has always been an attempt to revive this franchise without much success compared to its slasher counterparts. But that didn’t stop Jason Blum and Universal Studios from winning a bidding war and paying an enormous $400 million for the rights.

Seeing the success they had with reviving Michael Myers, Laurie Strode and the HALLOWEEN franchise with a trilogy that had varying degrees of acclaim, the producers felt that the new HALLOWEEN trilogy director, David Gordon Green, could do the same kind of magic with THE EXORCIST. Already announced as a new trilogy for the franchise, THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER was released for the Halloween season with not a whole lot of anticipation for it. After all, not many people clamored for a new EXORCIST. And after watching a couple of trailers and seeing that they dragged out one of the stars of the first film back, Academy Award Winner Ellen Burstyn, many started to feel less excited and more worried about the original getting tarnished with another subpar sequel. And unfortunately, as far as I’m concerned, there’s not much to believe in when it comes to BELIEVER.

Let’s get the good stuff out of the way. I thought the first half of this movie was actually pretty solid. It obviously sets up the events of the second half of the film, but the first fifty minutes or so are the most compelling and interesting. It focuses on the main characters, mainly the Fielding family - consisting of a single dad who lost his pregnant wife in an earthquake while vacationing in Haiti, and his daughter who survived the impact of the earthquake but resulted in the loss of her mother. We get to see their dynamic and how much Victor, the father, cares for Angela despite being a bit overprotective. She wants to spend more time away from home with her friend Katherine, who is the daughter of very religious parents - the total opposite of Victor, who lost his faith when his wife passed. Angela and Katherine head into the woods to do some sort of seance to contact Angela’s mother, which only sets off an evil chain of events that the families will never recover from. The girls become more demonic as they’re possessed, the parents start blaming each other until they realize they have to work together to solve the issue, and bring in characters old and new to exorcize the demons out of these two teenagers.

The first half of the film plays out like a true crime, missing persons type of movie. While we know what happened to both Angela and Katherine, we don’t really know how and why. Why were these two girls targeted? Is Pazuzu the demon possessing these girls, or is it another malevolent being? Priests struggled with one person being possessed. What chance do they have with two at once? Especially when the two girls are in sync by the same demon? I was interested because this is a new twist on a familiar story. It allowed the characters to develop into people we can kind of connect with, while wondering how they were going to overcome this when the demon is only willing to let one of the girls to survive over the other, making the parents have to choose both their fates. There’s a good story here and I think if handled better, this could have been a top notch EXORCIST movie.

I also felt the performances were really good. In particular, I thought both Leslie Odom Jr. and Lidya Jewett as Victor and Angela Fielding were the best of the lot. Odom Jr. has always been a solid actor and he plays the confused and grieving husband and father well. He has a presence that works well here. Jewett is also very sweet as Angela, which is great because she’s the total opposite once she’s possessed. I also thought the other young actress, Olivia Marcum as Katherine, is also very good. I don’t think she had much of a presence when she was normal, but once she’s possessed, she’s a standout. She reminded me of Linda Blair’s performance in the first film in many ways, which I appreciated. I also thought Ann Dowd was a highlight as Ann, a nurse who was previously a nun-in-training with a sinful past. She’s probably the best supporting actor here, bringing some gravitas and bringing some needed emotion during the last part of the film.

I also thought the cinematography by Michael Simmonds was nice. It did remind me of the three previous HALLOWEEN films, but I thought the movie had some really nice shots. This is probably the best looking EXORCIST movie, even though I’m sure some will feel it looks a bit too polished. But I thought his handling of the visuals established many things well, especially the use of light and shadow at times.

Unfortunately, that is all of the positivity I have for THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER. The biggest sin this film has is that it’s pretty silly once Ellen Burstyn pops in as the returning Chris MacNeil - the mother of the first film’s victim Regan. Folks, here we have the perfect example of how not to use a returning Legacy Character to a franchise. Unlike a Laurie Strode, or the trio of Sydney, Dewey and Gale, or hell, even the return of Sally Hardesty to Netflix’s TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE reboot from last year, Chris MacNeil has no purpose in this film other than for audiences to remember the first movie. A wonderful actress, Burstyn is given some of the worst dialogue in the film. She also looks quite bored and annoyed to be in this movie, even though she received a big paycheck for returning. And what David Gordon Green and his co-writers did to Chris in BELIEVER really shocked me and upset me. It just felt so unnecessary and pointless, because nothing in this film would change much if this character wasn’t involved. It felt like a disservice to the character, the actress, the creators of the character and the fans who loved the first film and hold it in high regard. It’s nice seeing Burstyn and another returning character [who cameos at the end] again in their famous roles. And unless both characters have a substantial part in the next film or two, what’s the point of using an important character like this? It’s pretty insulting.

Then we have the obvious exorcism itself, which felt like a Cliff Notes version of what we saw in the first film. The only difference is that the demon isn’t as foul-mouthed, there are two girls instead of one and there’s a whole bunch of religious folks trying to exorcize the demon rather than just a priest or two. I saw many call this group the “Exorcist Avengers” and they actually feel like that. I thought having people from different faiths to battle one demon was a cool idea, since each faith has a different method or interpretation on possession and dealing with demonic presences. But the film never really goes too deep in differentiating the respective methods, so I was missing some of the conflict and drama of possibly one person feeling their faith was better suited over the other. I guess it was refreshing to see people of different religions coming together rather than arguing about whose God is better, so I shouldn’t complain too much about that.

What I can complain about is how rushed the whole exorcist process is in this film. It feels forced in because this is an EXORCIST movie, but unlike the first film, there’s no real tension or drama. Well, that’s not completely true. There is a moment where the demon reveals that only one girl can survive the exorcism, making the respective parents choose which one to save and which one to let go. This is a great plot twist that would have created a ton of drama and tension amongst the characters. Who will they choose? If they do choose, is the demon going to keep its promise? Is there any way to save both? Will the parents do something stupid to insure their respective child survives over the other? Possibilities were there. There’s also a hint of anti-abortion rhetoric if you want to dig deep into that, which I didn’t really notice until I thought about things after the fact. There are a lot of interesting subplots that could have really enhanced the last half of this movie.

Instead, choosing a child lasts about five minutes. There’s no drama or suspense. There’s a bit of a twist but it doesn’t have enough of an impact to make you feel anything. The secret that’s revealed for one of the main characters doesn’t really go anywhere, unless that’s being saved for the next film. It all felt like a missed opportunity because there isn’t enough time given for these plotlines to sink in for the audience. This is like having a quickie when you’re looking for foreplay. Sometimes you want more out of your horror movie, especially if it’s a sequel to one of the best horror films of all time.

I think David Gordon Green needs to step back from directing horror films for a while and maybe just remain as a screenwriter or producer. I don’t think his filmmaking is terrible or anything, but it never feels inspired in BELIEVER. If I didn’t know this was a continuation to THE EXORCIST, the look of the film makes you think you’re still in Haddonfield, making you wait for either Michael or Laurie to pop up. The film is never scary. There are a couple of jump scares, but none of them worked on me or the audience I was with. While Green is good with his setups and first halves of this movies, he tends to do way too much with his second halves and rushes through their conclusions. I also appreciated the nods to the first film, but they feel limp compared to what Friedkin did. I feel if you’re going to make an EXORCIST movie, go all out with it. As much as I think EXORCIST II is a worse film than this one, at least that film is memorable. 

THE FINAL HOWL

THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER pretty much met all of my low expectations, not doing much in adding to the legacy of an iconic horror film from fifty years ago. The film is kind of dull for the most part, as it's not scary nor does it have tension or suspense. The exorcism portion feels like a watered down version of what we’ve seen before [in this franchise and other exorcism movies] despite having more characters involved. There are subplots that pop up in the final half that could have elevated this movie, but are rushed through without leaving much of an impact or excitement for the next installment. David Gordon Green’s direction isn’t all that different from what he did with his HALLOWEEN trilogy, even if the cinematography is quite nice. And the use of Ellen Burstyn - the less said about it, the better.

That being said, the acting is quite good - in particular Leslie Odom Jr, the two possessed girls [Lidya Jewett and Olivia Marcum] and Ann Dowd as a nurse with a past. The first half, which plays out like a true crime/missing persons type of movie, is actually quite compelling as it builds character development and sets up for what’s to come. And as I mentioned, the look of the film is nice.

Other than that, THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER isn’t the best possession movie of 2023. Hell, it’s not even the best film with the word “Exorcist” in the title this year [hey Russell Crowe]. I don’t think this is the worst film in the franchise, but at least EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC had balls. Maybe David Gordon Green or whoever could add some for THE EXORCIST: DECEIVER in 2025. The power of Christ doesn’t compel me to be excited for whatever comes next. What a shame.

SCORE

1.5 Howls Outta 4

(4 out of 10)

The Exorcist III (1990)

DIRECTED BY
William Peter Blatty

STARRING

George C. Scott - Lieutenant William F. Kinderman 

Ed Flanders - Father Joseph Dyer

Jason Miller - Patient X / Damien Karras

Scott Wilson - Dr. Temple

Brad Dourif - James Venamun / The "Gemini Killer"

Genre - Horror/Mystery/Crime/Demons/Possession/Serial Killers

Running Time - 110 Minutes

PLOT

Set fifteen years after the original film, THE EXORCIST III centers around the philosophical Lieutenant William F. Kinderman who is investigating a baffling series of murders around Georgetown that all contain the hallmarks of The Gemini, a deceased serial killer. It eventually leads him to a catatonic patient in a psychiatric hospital who has recently started to speak, claiming he is the The Gemini and detailing the murders, but bears a striking resemblance to Father Damien Karras.

REVIEW

With THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER coming to theaters in a couple of weeks, I’ve been revisiting THE EXORCIST franchise to get hyped up for a sequel/reboot that will probably won’t live to even the lowest expectations. The first film from 1973 still holds up exceptionally as a horror classic. THE HERETIC: EXORCIST II from 1977 would be appreciated as some sort of camp and so-bad-it’s-good movie if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s meant to be the sequel to an absolute masterpiece. Talk about a massive disappointment, although there are some out there who appreciate it for the trash that it is.

Despite the horror genre waning in popularity amongst the mainstream during the late 1980s and early 1990s, Hollywood decided it was time to step back into the world of THE EXORCIST. In 1990, THE EXORCIST III was released to some decent success both critically and even financially. Based on William Peter Blatty’s sequel novel Legion, Blatty himself decided to adapt his novel into a screenplay. He also decided to direct the film himself to make sure his story was given the respect it deserved and be a truly serious sequel to the original unlike THE HERETIC.

Even in 2023, THE EXORCIST III is still the only other film in the series [besides the first] to be given massive praise for its tone, approach to the narrative, and even the overall production. Despite the studio wanting Blatty’s ending to be more akin to the ending of the original EXORCIST [which he was against, creating the need of a Legion Cut that’s closer to the novel’s conclusion], THE EXORCIST III is still a super solid flick that ought to get more love and attention than it actually does.

While there is still demonic activity and supernatural occurrences one would expect out of an EXORCIST movie, THE EXORCIST III is more in line with a crime procedural at times - sort of like SE7EN, FALLEN or even COPYCAT would do years later. The main narrative revolves around “The Gemini Killer”, a serial killer who is known to cut certain fingers or drain a victim’s blood as a trademark, along with desecrating religious statues by beheading them, painting them in blackface or adding sexual connotations that would disturb most people. The problem about all this is that it’s believed “The Gemini Killer” had been already found and executed for his crimes. And while at first this new series of murders seem like a copycat, this new killer is doing things the old “Gemini Killer” would do that only the police know about [the real modus operandi and trademarks were kept from the public].

The detective investigating this is Lieutenant William F. Kinderman, a supporting character from the original EXORCIST who was investigating all the murders and strange activity happening around the McNeil household at the time. Along with his friend Father Dyer, another supporting character from the first film, they’re wondering if this may be the real "Gemini Killer" doing all these heinous things. It gets stranger as all clues lead them to a psychiatric hospital where Father Karras seems to be the main suspect - which shouldn’t be possible since Father Dyer found him dead on those infamous McNeil steps after he took in the demon that had possessed Regan and sacrificed himself by leaping out of a window to his supposed death. So when confronting Father Karras in his hospital room, he sometimes appears as himself and then as someone named James Venamun, who claims to be the real “Gemini Killer”. So what’s going on?

This mystery really raises the creep factor of THE EXORCIST III, as we’re not sure what we’re really seeing or supposed to believe when it comes to “The Gemini Killer”. There’s obviously a possession going on with the same demon [Pazuzu] who had possessed both Regan and Karras. But is this man really Karras, or is he James Venamun? Is he both? Is he neither? Through Lt. Kinderman, who is a skeptic and doesn’t believe in any of the stories about demon possession and a previous exorcism, his slow belief about the supernatural is a great character arc and gets the audience invested to go along the ride with him as he starts to figure out the truth. The story of the storytelling and mystery is strengthened by personnel and patients at the psychiatric hospital, who all behave in strange ways for whatever reason, making you question if these people are all influenced by this evil or are just quirky as heck and are red herrings to throw off one’s scent. Everyone besides Kinderman and Dyer all seem like they’re hiding something from the Lieutenant, putting to question whether this is all really happening or something this evil presence is doing to confuse the detective along with the audience. Unlike the goofiness and overly ambitious script that plagued THE HERETIC, Blatty treats this whole scenario seriously - something that helped the original EXORCIST to achieve the status it did from all audiences [not just horror audiences]. We care about Kinderman and his investigation because he cares and doesn’t let anything strange or personal stop him from finding out the truth.

While the theatrical cut and the Legion Cut are similar in many ways, the real differences are how “The Gemini Killer” is presented and the endings themselves. In the Legion Cut, we don’t even get Father Karras at all, with James Venamun being the only real antagonist. This actually cements the narrative as more realistic, as Venamun is just a “normal” man who may know more things about the serial killings than one ought to. Or maybe he’s possessed after all. Or just plain crazy. There’s something supernatural going on in the theatrical version, but the Legion Cut makes you question it a bit more until the end. 

As for the endings, The Legion Cut ends pretty abruptly with a single gunshot to wrap things up. The studio had issues with this because nothing in this version played up to the title of the film. In other words, where was the exorcism? So despite Blatty being against it, he took up the challenge to build up a more fantastical ending involving an underused priest, supernatural effects and a battle between good versus evil that connected itself back to THE EXORCIST. I know a lot of people prefer the simpler ending of the Legion Cut, but I feel the theatrical ending kicks things up a few notches and feels more satisfying to me as a whole. Kinderman finally believes in demonic possession, Father Karras gets redeemed a bit, and it truly feels the evil is gone for the time being. I can appreciate a more subtle approach for the original plan, but an EXORCIST movie should have some sort of exorcism in it. Both versions are worth your time, but I feel the theatrical version is a bit more exciting to watch due to the ending.

William Peter Blatty is a great novelist, but he also makes for a very good director as well. His second and last directorial film [the first being the awesome 1980’s THE NINTH CONFIGURATION], Blatty is more subtle in his visual approach than William Friedkin or even John Boorman. Blatty’s style is more comparable to a 90s thriller - slow [but not dull], muted colors, and adding weird things in the background that make you focus on the entire shot rather than what is just happening in the foreground. I mean, there are people crawling on ceilings, morphing into multiple people and even that classic moment involving a nurse and a large pair of shears. And despite his arguments against filming it, I think the theatrical ending is shot pretty well for the most part. Honestly, THE EXORCIST III is more of an actor’s showcase where the characters are more important than the visuals. But Blatty does a good job and manages to direct a sequel that feels more connected to the first one than THE HERETIC ever did.

The cast is very solid. George C. Scott is pretty great as Lt. Kinderman, playing a gruff skeptic who finally starts to believe he’s way over-his-head with a situation he has no idea how to deal with until the end. I love how quiet his performance is at the start of the film, but turns a bit more hammy and over-the-top towards the end. It’s wonderful. Ed Flanders is also great as Father Dyer, bringing in some humor to a serious movie. His chemistry with Scott is awesome and you truly believe these two have been friends for decades. Scott Wilson is solid as Dr. Temple. Jason Miller is very good as the returning Father Karras, struggling with what happened to him at the end of the first film. But Brad Dourif is the main reason to watch THE EXORCIST III, as he steals every scene as “The Gemini Killer” James Venamun. Dourif is just captivating and commanding through his subtle body language, maniacal facial expressions and the strong reciting of his dialogue. He’s given more to say and do in The Legion Cut, being the best part of that version as well. Just a fantastic performance in a great sequel.

THE FINAL HOWL

THE EXORCIST III is probably one of the more underrated great horror sequels ever made. Subtly strong direction by William Peter Blatty, a captivating mystery mixed with some memorable scares and visuals, and fantastic performances - especially by George C. Scott, Jason Miller and especially Brad Dourif. While it’s not a masterpiece like the 1973 original, this 1990 sequel is definitely a massive improvement over 1977’s THE HERETIC: EXORCIST II in every single way, making this the first real sequel [in my opinion] of the franchise. While I prefer the Theatrical Cut due to its final act, The Legion Cut is no slouch and offers something to those wanting a more grounded resolution. Either way, this is a mandatory viewing for any fan of this franchise.

SCORE

3.5 Howls Outta 4

(9 out of 10)

DOUBLE FEATURE: The Nun (2018) & The Nun II (2023)

DIRECTED BY

Corin Hardy (THE NUN)

Michael Chaves (THE NUN II)

STARRING

Taissa Farmiga - Sister Irene

Jonas Bloquet - Maurice “Frenchie” Theriault

Bonnie Aarons - The Nun

Demian Bichir - Father Burke (THE NUN)

Ingrid Bisu - Sister Oana (THE NUN)

Charlotte Hope - Sister Victoria (THE NUN)

Storm Reid - Debra (THE NUN II)

Anna Popplewell - Kate (THE NUN II)

Katelyn Rose Downey - Sophie (THE NUN II)

Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Demons/Possession

Running Time - 96 Minutes (THE NUN)/110 Minutes (THE NUN II)

PLOT

THE NUN - When a young nun at a cloistered abbey in Romania takes her own life, a priest with a haunted past (Demian Bichir) and a novitiate on the threshold of her final vows (Taissa Farmiga) are sent by the Vatican to investigate. Together they uncover the order’s unholy secret. Risking not only their lives but their faith and their very souls, they confront a malevolent force in the form of the same demonic nun (Bonnie Aarons) that first terrorized audiences in THE CONJURING 2 as the abbey becomes a horrific battleground between the living and the damned.

THE NUN II - Four years after the events at the Abbey of St. Carta, Sister Irene returns once again and comes face to face with the demonic force Valak, the Nun.

REVIEW

After taking a much needed break from reviewing since April, I was planning on returning many times for films that were being released theatrically for the past few months. While there were a couple of gems out there [THE BLACKENING and TALK TO ME], the others just left me in a state of “meh”.

THE BOOGEYMAN? Fine, but not motivating enough to discuss.

INSIDIOUS: THE RED DOOR? Underwhelming return for the original cast that probably would have lowered my original score if I had written about it.

THE HAUNTED MANSION? I forgot it even existed and so should you.

THE LAST VOYAGE OF THE DEMETER? Hopefully for all our sakes.

But I knew I had to return for something. And with 2023’s spooky season finally here, we got some big projects being released. SAW X? THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER? FIVE NIGHT AT FREDDY’S? There are films many of us will be discussing for the next couple of months.

However things are starting early with THE NUN II, another spin-off of the popular and successful THE CONJURING franchise that not many people were all that excited about honestly. Despite watching all three CONJURING flicks [first two are aces, the third one is whatever], I have never sat down and watched any of the spin-offs. No ANNABELLE movies. Not THE NUN flicks. And I never bothered with THE CURSE OF LA LLORONA. But I’m an AMC A-List member and I figured I might as well use my subscription on this. But first, I had to watch the original NUN movie to understand this sequel.

And man… 2018’s THE NUN is not a good movie. In fact, it’s so uneventful that I have already forgotten what I watched [besides the flashbacks and call backs in the sequel]. Audiences must have really loved the Nun character in THE CONJURING 2, which is the only explanation I can come up with when it comes to its good box office numbers. But I’m sure some wished they had never bothered after watching it.

The good? THE NUN has a ton of atmosphere and mood that at least tries to give the movie a creepy vibe that the story and direction fail to do. So great Gothic cinematography boosts the first film, along with a solid cast that also elevates proceedings a bit. Bonnie Aarons is a wonderful presence as the evil Nun, while Taissa Farmiga and Demian Bichir do well with what they’re given as the two main protagonists. Jonas Bloquet is also okay, although his attempt as the comic relief doesn’t really work at all and feels forced.

Other than that, THE NUN is a mess of a spin-off. Director Corin Hardy relies too much on jump scares - none of them work, by the way - making the film feel more annoying than scary. And the story is all over the place, to the point where it’s big ambition to do an INDIANA JONES and DA VINCI CODE type of narrative just takes you out of it and makes you not remember much at all once it’s over. Not only do you have an evil Nun, but you also have a demonic ghost child, the blood of Jesus Christ as a MacGuffin, and a young nun with visions that may or may not be doing more harm than good. The film honestly barely kept my interest despite all of this, mainly because none of these plot devices felt truly developed. THE CONJURING films work because they follow the slow burn, less-is-more approach. THE NUN tries too much and feels like an unnecessary cash in as a result.

Because of my lack of feelings for THE NUN, I honestly wasn’t expecting much out of THE NUN II. But surprisingly, this is a sequel that actually manages to be a huge improvement over the first one in almost every single way. Hell, I liked THE NUN II more than some of the other recent films that I wrote about earlier.

The producers of THE NUN must have realized that despite the money they made, the fan and critical response wasn’t great. And despite this sequel being a total cash grab and unnecessary, I have to actually admire everyone involved for fixing some of the issues and actually trying to make a decently watchable film that felt more focused and purposeful for the overall franchise. I’m not saying that THE NUN II is a masterpiece or even good, but I can respect producers who see the error of their ways to create a film even a hater like me could even enjoy for the most part.

What helps this sequel is that THE NUN II has a tighter, more focused narrative that keeps things as simple as possible, despite it being pretty generic and cliche. There’s an actual course of action from beginning to end that makes sense, allowing characters old and new to develop into actual people we can somewhat care about and/or have a reaction to, despite a larger cast. 

Unlike the adventure and mystery style of the first film, THE NUN II is a more straightforward good versus evil, exorcism type of movie that we’ve all seen done multiple times before. And while we’ve already had films this year that have done this [THE POPE’S EXORCIST] and films yet to come [THE EXORCIST: BELIEVER], at least it’s a narrative I can easily understand and get into. Frenchie being possessed by the Nun’s evil gives the movie a reason for Sister Irene to seek him out and reconnect. His possession also justifies why he’s working at a Catholic school and seeking some ancient artifact for his possessor to gain ultimate power. These plot devices allow older characters to grow in a more interesting way that the previous film didn’t allow them to, while giving newer characters a reason to exist - even if most of them are just there to be victims of the evil that’s corrupting the school. Sister Irene’s new friendship and mentorship with nun-in-training Debra is given enough time to develop into something interesting enough that I wouldn’t mind it continuing if there’s another installment. Frenchie’s more serious character is a massive improvement and he becomes a well-written character because of it, especially through his relationships with a woman he previously had feelings for [Irene] and the teacher he falls for [Kate] fleshing him out and giving him a reason to fight against the evil possessing him. We even have a decent mystery and some bullish female characters that will probably elicit some sort of reaction from the audience.

The direction by Michael Chaves, who also directed CONJURING spin-off THE CURSE OF LA LLORONA [which I’ve never bothered with] and THE CONJURING 3 [yuck], does a good job with THE NUN II. The film loses a lot of its atmosphere and mood from the first film unfortunately. But the tone and action is done a lot better here. There’s no unnecessary comedy getting in the way. The jump scares are kept to a minimum. The newsstand scene from the trailer is still effective within the context of the film [great scene]. And the film’s final act is pretty strong, especially when we have the Nun stalking people, a ton of explosions and a good looking Devil-Goat thing that terrorizes the school. Chaves doesn’t reinvent the wheel or anything like that, but I thought the film was visually more interesting than the first film.

The actors are also pretty good here again. The returning actors [Farmiga and Blochet] are much stronger in the sequel, due to better writing for their characters and just an overall confidence boost from both of them. Blochet, in particular, is handled much better here than in the first as he’s given more meaty material to chew on. Bonnie Aarons is still wonderful as the evil Nun, maintaining the same level of malevolent presence she had in THE CONJURING 2. The only actor who felt a bit out-of-place is probably Storm Reid as the new nun-in-training Debra. She’s not terrible or anything [actually, she’s good in the role she’s given], but her character is written in such a modern way that her performance doesn’t fit the tone of a 1950s period piece. You get a bit used to it by the film’s end, but it’s definitely jarring for her first few scenes. 

THE FINAL HOWL

Even though I had to sit through the bland and unimpressive THE NUN from 2018 in order to watch the current THE NUN II, I’m kind of glad I did since the sequel is a much better time than the first installment. THE NUN skates by with a great atmosphere and decent performances, but not much else. THE NUN II is an improvement in almost every way. Better performances, more care with the jump scares and a more interesting, if not generic, good versus evil exorcism movie that allows some depth to characters who didn’t have much before.

In fact, I had more fun with THE NUN II than a majority of the big screen horror films I’ve watched this summer, which is surprising since I didn’t care about this sequel at all prior to viewing it. I don’t think any of THE NUN films are must-sees or anything, but it may be worth sitting through the dull first movie in order to get caught up with the much more watchable sequel. With the success of the new installment, we’ll probably see more about this character. But we don’t really need NUN of that, do we?

SCORE

THE NUN (2018)

1.5 Howls Outta 4

(4 out of 10)

THE NUN II (2023)

2.5 Howls Outta 4

(6 out of 10)