Review: ‘The Nun’ is morbidly fascinating, but still shallow |

Review: ‘The Nun’ is morbidly fascinating, but still shallow

Step aside, “Halloween.” Forget it, “Paranormal Activity.” Nice try, “Scream.”

“The Conjuring” franchise (or the “Conjuring Cinematic Universe,” the “CCU”) has steadily become the most dependable horror film franchise of late, conquering the box office with good old-fashioned and flawlessly executed spooks and scares, with a few interesting ideas to boot.

Spinning off James Wan’s 2013 “The Conjuring,” about real-life married ghost hunters Ed and Lorraine Warren, the franchise started with true tales of hauntings, possessions and spectral invasions. But there were so many side stories and creepy characters that both “The Conjuring” and “The Conjuring 2” well, conjured up, that more movies were necessary.

There have been two films about Annabelle, the creepiest porcelain doll ever. And now “The Nun” takes on the backstory of the imposing demon in a habit that terrorized Lorraine’s visions.

Gothic horror epic

In this spinoff, director Corin Hardy delivers a ’70s throwback gothic horror epic. Written by “Annabelle” screenwriter Gary Dauberman and James Wan, it’s lush, operatic, hardcore Catholic horror from the depths of “The Omen” and “The Exorcist,” with hints of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s “Black Narcissus,” washed with medieval overtones.

And it’s a total, screaming blast.

Demián Bichir is perfectly cast as Father Burke, a reluctant priest tasked by the Vatican to investigate unusual religious phenomena, or as they call it, “miracle hunting” (he exudes shades of Jason Miller in “The Exorcist”).

After young deliveryman Frenchie (Jonas Bloquet) discovers the hanged body of a nun at a cloistered Romanian abbey, Burke is sent to investigate the suicide. He is asked to bring along a young novitiate, Sister Irene (Taissa Farmiga), for her familiarity with “the territory” (she’s never been to Romania).

The people of the village claim the abbey is cursed, bringing a plague upon their houses, and the woods are littered with protective crosses. Once the trio arrives, they discover it’s not as bad as they expect — it’s worse.

Mouth to hell

The place is a mouth to hell, guarded by terrified nuns who participate in perpetual adoration and prayer to keep the demons at bay, though they aren’t doing all that great a job of it.

Burke must rely on his deep religious historical knowledge, while Irene puts her psychic abilities and visions to use in combatting the ancient evil. Frenchie is the audience surrogate, agape at the surreal horrors unfolding within the abbey’s walls, using good old-fashioned firepower as his protection.

French horror cinematographer Maxime Alexandre is well-versed in the visual language of the CCU — the slow camera movements, pushes and pulls that build tension, and slow pans that mimic human vision, looking away then back to reveal some demon lurking in the shadows. The camera chases and circles elusive creatures, catching glimpses but never quite finding anything before some hellish doom looms out of the dark.

Question of faith

Despite the sumptuous imagery and sound design enhanced with Gregorian chants and despite the excellent performances (particularly Farmiga as the steely but vulnerable little nun), “The Nun” fails to execute one element: the question of faith.

The franchise, with its point-of-view camera work and themes of psychic visions, has always pushed the boundaries on “seeing is believing,” and having a little faith in the things you can see that others can’t.

In a religious setting, where prayer keeps demons at bay, there’s an opportunity to explore the idea further, but “The Nun” stays on the surface. The surface may be ominous, richly textured and morbidly fascinating, but storywise, it remains shallow.

Katie Walsh is a Tribune News Service writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.