死霊館 悪魔のせいなら、無罪。
監督:Michael Chaves超常現象調査員のウォーレン夫妻の体験を映像化する、ジェイムズ・ワン製作によるアトラクション・ホラー・シリーズ。殺人事件の容疑者が悪魔に取り憑かれていたと主張したことから、ウォーレン夫妻の奮闘が始まる。
死霊館 悪魔のせいなら、無罪。の評価とレビュー
- Zokkiie2026年2月7日Hmm, Wilson and Farmiga are really good, as always, and the demon-possession trial storyline was actually kind of interesting. Some of the jump scares were predictable, and a few characters didn’t get much development, which was a shame. Still, the atmosphere and a few genuinely creepy scenes make it worth checking out if you like the series
- MrTrivet2026年2月2日It’s enjoyable to see the Warrens on the screen again - the Farmiga/Wilson duo remains natural and convincing. The film delivers the series’ typical elements: supernatural phenomena, dramatic exorcisms, bone-crunching moments, and evil that must be expelled. Yet despite these attractions, the overall effect leaves a rather indifferent impression. The plot is based on a real murder case involving possession, blending light courtroom drama with classic religious horror. The narrative, however, is less dynamic, and attempts to build tension often rely on predictable jump scares and well-worn tropes. While the sequel has strong moments and a solid cast, it is by far the weakest installment of the main Warrens series - an okay horror, but lacking that distinctive punch, as if the motif of scaring people with the devil has started to wear thin.
- Humpty2025年2月23日Good excuse to use in court. OJ's lawyer used it.
- SandyOlson782025年12月7日This one kind of gave me The Shining vibes closer to the end. I liked the dogs. I feel bad for the guy who just wanted to dance.
- Ishtiaq Eifty Ahmed2025年9月3日It was average, it was good and bad. Right in the middle. It was very predictable but nice jump scares
- Nathan Magreta2025年10月31日The conjuring: the devil made me do it has a great setup and plot of a demon causing someone to commit murder. This film has a lot of potential, but it leans very hard into the paranormal, in comparison to the first 2 being very grounded. Still, great movie.
- cursedbags2025年9月8日not as bad as i remember.
- Ana Kaja Premerl2025年8月26日Probbably the worst one yet. Pretty boring for me bit acting was great
- jackmeat2025年7月15日My quick rating - 6.6/10. When the bar is so high, it isn't a bad thing to say this is the worst of the 3. Then again, after James Wan relinquished the directing reins, you knew this would be something different. Still, this one has nice camera work, and Michael Chaves delivers a good-looking flick. But it is missing the scares we have grown accustomed to, and the attention to the details seems to be missing. In the place of scares is a solid foundation for the Warrens to build upon in taking the universe in a different direction. The flawless execution of taking the true story of Arne Johnson from the early eighties murder and weaving it into the lore that has been created is very admirable. Even though most of what you have learned so far is more or less just referred to instead of being part of the story. I am really unsure how it is they found such a perfect pair in Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson, but onscreen they just "work" in a way that few onscreen couples can. This is demonstrated as they attempt to prove that the killer (Ruairi O'Connor) was "not guilty by demonic possession," which in the courts just doesn't happen. Though it was a part of this flick, I somewhat wish that since they were going down this road and stepping away from the haunted house & creepy scares, they would have given us a bit more of the actual court case. I also thought that the evil protagonist (Eugenie Bondurant) was about as spooky as can be. Her scenes just oozed the fear that was needed. It may not have been the best of the trilogy (so far), but it is definitely worth seeing.
- CHIEF2025年10月12日Not better than part 1, but worth the watch.
- Pauli Jokela2025年10月10日It was okay.
- ርልዪረ2025年10月5日Donot be fooled by the 57% of Rotten tomatoes, or any critic reviews for that matter. This movie is pure gold. Not as great as the first one ofcourse, but still an amazing entry. The major difference between the third chapter and the previous two is of the proportion of "storytelling" to "jumpscares". The first movie (2013) had plenty of fresh ways to scare the audience, but it's basic story revolves around a haunted-house-esque-drama. The second (2016) though had plenty of twists and turns it still had the same premise of haunted-house-esque-family-drama. The third movie on the other hand is waaaaaaay beyond its regular formula. There are so many NEW elements thrown in the mix. And still it ties up all the loose ends together. Trust me, while watching this movie you'll never go "Been there, seen that before". Nope! It's not exhaustive to watch, and you'll never guess what'll happen next.
- LivewireAdmin2025年9月11日On first watch, I thought this was a decent but lesser entry—moody, a bit scattered, and not nearly as scary as Wan’s haunted-house high points. On rewatch, it played better than I expected. Knowing it pivots from a haunted-home siege to a road-movie investigation helped me meet it on its own terms, and the film’s strengths—especially the Ed & Lorraine dynamic—come through more clearly. Michael Chaves steers the series into occult-thriller territory, and that shift is the movie’s secret sauce. The case-of-the-week framework—totems, a shadowy occultist, the Arne Johnson trial—gives Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga room to lean into the seasoned, tender partnership that anchors these films. Their scenes together carry a warmth and trust that makes the supernatural stakes feel personal; Ed’s vulnerability here adds a human wrinkle I underappreciated the first time. Set-piece wise, it’s quietly stacked. The waterbed gag, the morgue sequence, and the rain-soaked cliff finale are all crisply staged, with Joseph Bishara’s score seething underneath like a low hum of dread. I also dug the period texture—those amber lamps and milky blues, the slightly waxy sheen of early-’80s interiors—plus the way the camera prowls rather than pounces. It’s less about jump scares and more about sustained unease. The knocks are still the same, just less bothersome on revisit. The legal hook—“the devil made me do it”—feels underused; the courtroom angle is more marketing than narrative muscle. The occultist’s motivations read thin, and some CG-assisted moments can’t match the tactile nastiness of the franchise’s best practical frights. And while Chaves builds atmosphere, he doesn’t wring quite the same symphonic terror Wan did in 1 and 2. Even so, the rewatch reframed it as a sturdy, character-driven chapter rather than a misfire. It’s a different flavor: an investigative romance with demons, not a carnival of set-pieces. When I tuned into that wavelength, I found a solid mid-tier Conjuring entry. Worth a second look. Letterboxd: FilmPhanPA
- Princess Zoe2025年7月19日Its my favorite of the franchise so far
- wilky1002025年6月27日It was very scary but i loved it
死霊館 悪魔のせいなら、無罪。を視聴
死霊館 悪魔のせいなら、無罪。に関するトリビア
死霊館 悪魔のせいなら、無罪。は2021年5月26日に公開されました。
死霊館 悪魔のせいなら、無罪。はMichael Chavesが監督を務めました。
死霊館 悪魔のせいなら、無罪。の上映時間は1h 51mです。
死霊館 悪魔のせいなら、無罪。はJames Wan, Peter Safranがプロデューサーを務めました。
超常現象調査員のウォーレン夫妻の体験を映像化する、ジェイムズ・ワン製作によるアトラクション・ホラー・シリーズ。殺人事件の容疑者が悪魔に取り憑かれていたと主張したことから、ウォーレン夫妻の奮闘が始まる。
死霊館 悪魔のせいなら、無罪。の主要人物はLorraine Warren (Vera Farmiga), Ed Warren (Patrick Wilson), Judy Warren (Sterling Jerins)です。
死霊館 悪魔のせいなら、無罪。はR15+と評価されています。
死霊館 悪魔のせいなら、無罪。はホラー, 謎, スリラー映画です。
死霊館 悪魔のせいなら、無罪。は、視聴者によって10点満点中8.3点をつけられています。
死霊館 悪魔のせいなら、無罪。の予算は$3900万です。
死霊館 悪魔のせいなら、無罪。の興行収入は$2.1億です。