The reviews split widely, and rather more fall against the film than for it. Almost everyone agrees on one thing: Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga remain the reason to watch, their easy rapport carrying scenes the script does not. Beyond that, the reservations cluster around familiarity. Most critics find the scares recycled from earlier entries, the pacing slow to get going, and the decision to centre the Warrens’ own family a slide into sentiment that several call schmaltzy; the finale in particular draws complaints of being flat or faintly ridiculous. A minority is won over. The Telegraph calls it the freakiest film in the series, and The Times finds it hair-raising, both crediting the intimacy of the frights over any bigger set piece. At the far end, Den of Geek argues the film’s Catholic, family-first values retroactively diminish the earlier entries. Nobody argues it breaks new ground.
T
The Telegraph
4 September 2025 · ★★★★ · Tim Robey
80
The review calls it the freakiest entry in the franchise and a satisfying send-off with chillingly imaginative touches. It highlights the familiar template executed with shivery intimacy and strong reaction shots from the leads.
Read the full review →E
Empire
3 September 2025 · Helen O’Hara
75*
The critic praises the film's blend of genuine scares and sentimental elements as the Warrens' story concludes, highlighting effective frights and pacing despite a lengthy runtime focused more on character than plot.
Read the full review →The review finds the film edges into camp with coyly trope-laden Warren family drama that verges on comedy while returning to effective haunted-house scares. It praises clever set pieces like the crawling doll and single-frame VHS apparition over the big finish.
Read the full review →R
Radio Times
3 September 2025 · ★★★ · Alan Jones
60
The critic finds the film a polished but familiar entry that doesn't break new ground in the demonic-possession genre, yet remains an enjoyable old-school chiller thanks to strong chemistry between the leads and confident direction. The moving epilogue and respectful nod to franchise heritage are highlighted as positives.
Read the full review →G
The Guardian
3 September 2025
40*
The review finds the film sluggish and resistant to change, likening it to outdated dad-rock horror amid a vibrant new wave of the genre. It notes the Warrens' middle-aged portrayal and the long setup before scares, praising the lead actors' solidity while criticizing the lack of innovation.
Read the full review →V
Variety
3 September 2025 · J. Kim Murphy
40*
The critic views it as a hokey finale that accentuates the franchise's sappy and derivative tendencies by centering the story on the Warrens themselves. It singles out the strong performances by Wilson and Farmiga for praise while criticizing the muddled scares and on-rails storytelling.
Read the full review →A
The AV Club
3 September 2025 · D · Jacob Oller
37
The review deems the film a Biblically boring victory lap and slog that solidifies the franchise as the Fast & Furious of horror with sappy schmaltz and revisited greatest hits. It criticizes the cheap happily-ever-after ending.
Read the full review →L
Los Angeles Times
4 September 2025 · Katie Walsh
30*
The critic describes it as a sluggishly routine send-off that puts a tombstone on a slackening series, with the Warren lore thoroughly picked over. It singles out the lead performances by Wilson and Farmiga as the enduring heart of the films amid the formulaic jump scares.
Read the full review →N
The New York Times
4 September 2025 · Beatrice Loayza
30*
The critic calls it a disappointing send-off for the highest-grossing horror franchise, noting a significant decrease in quality and scares compared to the original. It singles out the shift to a cozy family affair centered on the Warrens as a notable change.
Read the full review →I
IndieWire
7 September 2025 · Alison Foreman
The review calls it a significant step-up from the previous entry in a mixed-bag film that theoretically closes the book on the Conjuring universe. It questions whether audiences will miss the series.
Read the full review →H
The Hollywood Reporter
3 September 2025 · Frank Scheck
The review finds the franchise suffering from fatigue with stale scares and little freshness from returning director Michael Chaves. It notes that while Farmiga and Wilson remain engaging, the film feels old hat after 12 years.
Read the full review →T
The Times
4 September 2025 · ★★★★☆ · Ed Potton
The review describes a shiver-inducing and satisfying farewell that is scary and at times genuinely hair-raising. It praises the Eighties setting and the return of the Warrens facing their fiercest foe while noting some loss of subtlety by the end.
Read the full review →D
Deadline
3 September 2025 · Gregory Nussen
75*
The critic calls it a frothy and appropriately terrifying return to the first film's pleasures, more successful on scares than the prior two entries. They single out the effective tying of the haunting mechanics to the Warrens' family unit and emotional stakes, including the psychological toll on their daughter.
Read the full review →C
Collider
3 September 2025 · 7/10 · Jeff Ewing
70
The critic finds it a less scary and disappointing finale but praises the amazing performances of Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson. It shortchanges the scares and pacing, and the antagonist is underdeveloped.
Read the full review →N
NME
3 September 2025 · ★★★ · Jordan Bassett
60
The critic finds it a mediocre farewell that begins with handsome, jumpy set pieces but slows into faux-emotional babble and a weak, laughable finale.
Read the full review →P
Polygon
3 September 2025 · Jesse Hassenger
60*
It's a mild farewell with a few good shocks; the series remains wholesome but the finale feels flat with little at stake, though effective as a scare machine in places.
Read the full review →D
Den of Geek
5 September 2025 · Joe George
30*
The critic calls it a bad movie that retroactively diminishes earlier entries by prioritizing conservative Catholic ideology and nuclear family values over scares or engaging characters.
Read the full review →Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate