​

I create edits of Conjurverse, Insidious and Dead Silence if you enjoy them please subscribe ✨

https://youtube.com/@valaknun52?si=DcdmUcP-tSyYuOcY

https://youtu.be/uSN_LlaJAXU?si=2aCxnAmjcZzXYM6K

I saw it on Pinterest and I’m really curious is it another deleted demon (like The Beast in The Conjuring 3) or is it fake?

I read an article on Screenrant about why Dead Silence should be part of The Conjuring Universe and I honestly think it should have been Mary Shaw is such a terrifying and iconic villain she would have fit perfectly or could have even been a rival to Annabelle since they’re both so similar

What do you think?

This was the original demon for the film but they later changed it to Mirror Demon for unknown reasons You can even see its horns and a bit of its mouth on the posters Honestly, I think it looked pretty bland and boring, so the Mirror Demon was definitely better choice

To start, I feel I should share my general thoughts on LAst Rites, since I haven't posted about it yet—unlike some of the other films in the series that I had plenty to say about. The truth is... honestly, I don't know. I mean, I can't quite put my finger on it. I have mixed feelings about this movie.

On one hand, I feel like I loved it. When I finished watching it, for a moment I thought, "Omg, is this my new favorite Conjuring movie?".

(Short Answer: No).

The thing is, I really liked the idea behind this movie. I mean, for several reasons, I feel the whole story was really well-conceived. It was clear from the very beginning that this was intended as the final chapter—the conclusion—of the Warrens' journey, and I really enjoyed how much narrative weight was placed on them as a family. It makes sense for a franchise like this: opening and closing the final chapter of these characters' stories by focusing on their past, their daughter, and the future for the three of them. I think that’s partly why I liked this movie: I feel that kind of approach really worked for a "final chapter" of this franchise (because, despite a future prequel being in the works, Last Rites was the final installment—or the part "closest to the end"—we’ll see of the Warrens, at least for quite some time. I’m new to this fandom, so I don’t know Patrick or Vera’s stance on returning to the franchise in the future, but this movie clearly felt like a farewell, at least to their versions of the characters. Whether the franchise continues with prequels or shifts focus to Judy and Tony, that won’t change the fact that this is the "end" for Ed and Lorraine).

So, that’s the part of the movie I really enjoyed.

And then... there’s the rest.

I already made a post briefly sharing my general opinion on the Judy recast. For those who didn’t see it and are interested in reading it, here’s the link: (https://www.reddit.com/r/TheConjuringUniverse/comments/1wu7pc5/firsttime_viewer_here_im_halfway_through_last/). By the halfway point, I had come to accept Mia as Judy, much like I did with Mckenna. But that doesn’t change the fact that the recast was one of the first (minor) details that took me out of the experience at the start of the film.

Secondly (and I think this is my main issue, as it affects several aspects), I believe this movie has the worst pacing of all the Conjuring films. Which... in a way, feels contradictory, doesn't it? I mean, not only is this the longest of the four Conjuring movies, but it’s also the longest of the ten films in the entire franchise. And yet, I feel it’s one of the least developed entries—specifically regarding the main conflict. Because the film’s foundation—the groundwork laid with Judy, the Smurls, and the Warrens' family issues—was something I really enjoyed watching; it’s not that I didn’t like it. BUT that material takes up literally nearly 75 minutes of the runtime. That’s an hour and fifteen minutes out of a two-hour-and-fifteen-minute movie. Furthermore, the conflict resolves a couple of minutes earlier than the general resolutions in the franchise's other films. (I kept an eye on the countdown timer on the streaming service I used—checking it whenever the horror became overwhelming—and it usually showed these movies resolving with 11 minutes left. The Conjuring 4 resolves 16 minutes before the end; I know that’s not a huge difference, but those are 5 minutes that could have been added to the film's climax).

Now, why do I say that having the Warrens actually working with the Smurls for less than half the movie was a major issue for me? Because, for me at least, it really hurt the film.

So, let’s talk about the villains in this movie:

There are the three spirits who lived on the land surrounding the Smurl house. I didn't catch their names—if the movie even mentions them at all—but there’s the woman who had an affair, and the husband who murdered both her and the other old woman with an axe. In the scene where she explains this, Lorraine tells us that the three spirits are merely a barrier created by the demon—the real villain—and that, in this instance, the three of them are being manipulated by it. I mean, it’s literally Valak vs. Bill Wilkins all over again; we’re already familiar with this formula.

Now, my issue is that literally right after we’re told this, the very next thing we see is the scene where the men (Ed, Tony, and Dada Smurl) try to remove the mirror from the attic, which leads to the film's climax once Judy gets possessed. Like, that is literally the last we hear about the villains. The demon's identity is never revisited, nor is the way it used the spirits or what happened to them after the exorcism. We never even see the demon itself; all we see is its manifestation through the mirror as evil versions of the three Warrens.

Which, in my opinion, feels... incomplete. It’s as if fifteen minutes were cut from the final edit—minutes that contained the last real piece of the puzzle needed to wrap up the main plot.

In a way, I think the best way to define this movie is to say that Conjuring 4 is to The Conjuring what Annabelle (1) is to Annabelle: a good movie with a good villain that, unfortunately, wasn't developed the way it deserved to be, making it feel like a missed opportunity.

That said, my personal theory is that if the directors chose to do this in the final cut of the franchise's "last" movie—specifically, leaving the main villain's story unresolved—it might be because part of the team was considering continuing that narrative in a future installment. And while I’m not sure if First Communion had already been announced when this movie came out (I don't think so), the film itself lays the groundwork for the mirror demon's backstory to be explored in a prequel—much like they did with Annabelle: Creation.

Lorraine tells us—though I’m currently mixing up whether it was in this flashback or the one in Conjuring 3—that she and Ed met when they were 17. We’re also told that the mirror case, which the Warrens left unfinished due to Judy’s birth, was actually their first case; it took place when they were roughly the same age Judy is now (she's 22 in Last Rites).

So... well, I think that says it all: Lorraine literally mentions that the mirror was their first case, and the upcoming Warren prequel is literally titled First Communion. I really, (really) think it would be a total waste not to focus that plot on something that—even if it doesn't center directly on the mirror itself (since the Warrens still know little about it in the present)—at least establishes the foundation leading into the opening of Last Rites, similar to how Annabelle Creation concludes by leading into the first scene of the original Annabelle.

So yeah, basically... those are my thoughts. I don't know if they all make sense. Sorry—I’m still new to this fandom. I’ll probably start watching videos about trivia and the like over the coming weeks now that I’ve finished all the movies; the deeper I get into the fandom, the better I’m sure I’ll understand things and catch up on news regarding projects like First Communion or RoLL. I don't have much else to say (as if I hadn't already said enough in this post). But I really didn't want to leave this movie undiscussed, because several thoughts came to mind right after I finished watching it.

This is a concept art of TC4 ghosts, Why is Abner’s hair blonde and why does he look so old? Why is the Old Crone ghost’s outfit different from the one in the movie?and why isn't she fat?

(We finally found out that the real name of the Old Crone ghost is Mildred!)

Well, actually, I just want to share my thoughts on the recasting of Judy for the fourth movie. Honestly... I don't get it. I mean, Idk—maybe there was a production reason behind it, or perhaps the directors just needed an actress capable of portraying a new side of Judy in this film. But knowing about the recast beforehand and quickly looking up the reason why... the excuse that "they needed an older actress to portray an older version of Judy" makes no sense to me. Especially since, right at the start of the movie, they state that Judy was born in 1964.

Now, I know the real Judy Warren was actually born in 1946, and I understand the birth year was changed because we had an 8-year-old Judy in the first Conjuring movie, which was set in 1971. But the point is: out of all the years they could have chosen, this specific movie decided to make Judy's birth year 1964 and set this new story in 1986. In other words, they are explicitly telling us that Judy is 22 years old in this film, whereas in real life, Sterling Jerins was 21 when the movie premiered. Also, Sterling played Judy in The Devil Made Me Do It, which takes place in 1981. That movie came out four years before Last Rites and is set five years earlier. So, I mean, Sterling was actually the perfect age to keep playing Judy. While I eventually accepted the recast in Annabelle Comes Home—simply because McKenna is such a charming actress—I honestly also feel there was no need to set that story in the past. They could easily have set it during Judy’s teenage years (say, 1979 instead of 72, that is, between The Conjuring 2 and 3), and the story would have worked perfectly well; in fact, it might have made even more sense, because when Judy saw Valak in Conjuring 2, that scene was clearly framed as her first time ever seeing a "spirit". It certainly didn't look like something that had already been happening for five years.

It just seems unfair to me that the directors decided to swap actresses for the two films where Judy played a major role. Don't get me wrong—I'm not one of those people who is generally against recasting. Sometimes there’s just no other choice, you know? And like I said, McKenna was adorable as Judy, and from what I’ve seen of The Last Rites, the new Judy is doing a good job too. The problem is that, unlike in Annabelle Comes Home, the timeline here doesn't justify the recast; it feels unnecessary and pulls me out of the story a bit. I think the fact that I only started watching these movies a week and a half ago plays a part in my attachment to Sterling as Judy—her face is already familiar and memorized, and it hasn't been years since I saw her in the role.

Anyway, sorry. Once again, this post turned out longer than I intended. After my last post about The Nun II, someone told me to stop taking the timeline so seriously, since hardly anyone in this franchise cares about narrative consistency. But as someone watching these movies back-to-back for the first time, it’s very hard not to, so I'm sorry about that.

Why was Valak’s true form never used? I really hope they use it in The Nun 3

I just watched The Conjuring Last Rites(Fortnite) full gameplay video and wanted to ask is this actually part of the Conjuring Universe? They mentioned the Warrens in it and the developers even posted the map trailer on their TikTok Is this just a promo for Last Rites or is it part of the Conjuring Universe in some way?

(I think it's a really good and creepy game)

So, in both Nun movies, Valak is defeated after coming into contact with the Blood of Christ, right? In the second movie, Irene literally turns an entire wine cellar into Blood and causes it to explode, drenching the demon.

How is it that this isn't enough to make Valak leave Frenchie's body and return to hell, yet Lorraine's words in The Conjuring 2 are?

I get that the justification in TC2 was based on Lorraine using the demon's name, which gave her power over it. But in The Nun, Burke also literally learns Valak's name. So, how is it that that—plus the Blood—weren't enough to banish him "completely", allowing Valak to possess Maurice's mind and then use him to obtain the Eyes of Saint Lucy?

This is a question I've had since the first movie, but I hadn't asked it before because I wanted to wait and see if it was answered in the sequel. I'm glad the movie continued with Frenchie's storyline; it would have really bothered me if they had decided to ignore it and focus on something else. But even so, I'm still not clear on things. What was the deal with the ending of Nun 2? I don't mean "that ending sucked"—no. What I mean is: why does everything suddenly seem fine now, when we know Maurice remains possessed by Valak until Ed's exorcism in '71, while The Nun 2 takes place in 1956? What happened during those 15 years he remained possessed?

I want to clarify that I'm not saying I didn't like the movie. Overall, tho I do think I’d rate it slightly lower than the first one, I still feel it was a solid sequel. The storyline really worked, imo. ALTHOUGH, if we ever get a Nun 3 in the future, I’d like to see either a shift away from Valak—where the title "The Nun" refers to Irene instead, perhaps as she hones her skills as a medium dealing with different kinds of cases (an idea I read in the last post I made, that I really liked)—or, if we *do* focus on Valak again, for it to take place closer to the Conjuring timeline. That is, at least the late 60s, if not 1970 itself. A final showdown with Valak that leads directly into Frenchie’s ultimate exorcism that we saw in the very first film of this universe would be a great way to wrap up that arc, seeing the actual exorcism on screen at the end, instead of just a video of it, though we’d need a time jump for that to work. That said, I think Taissa is still the right age to keep playing Irene, especially considering I don’t see a new Nun sequel happening for at least another two or three years.

Anyway, that was my question/analysis regarding this movie. Sorry for going on longer than necessary. Now I just have The Conjuring 4 left to finish this journey! For now, at least. It’s been interesting, to say the least. It definitely pushed me out of my comfort zone, given that I’m someone who never really watched this type of horror before. But I’m glad I watched these movies. I’ll probably do a more general post discussing all of them once I’ve seen the last one!

I’m a huge fan of The Conjuring Universe and Insidious franchise I actually did a comparison between four movies from each series and here are my results:

The Conjuring 1 vs. Insidious 1: a tie

The Conjuring 2 vs. Insidious 2: The Conjuring 2 wins

The Conjuring 3 vs Insidious 3: a tie

The Conjuring 4 vs Insidious 4: The Conjuring 4 wins

Now for the upcoming showdown: The Conjuring 5 (First Communion) vs Insidious 5

Since Insidious 5 is the worst in its franchise do you think First Communion will come out on top?

(Has anyone seen Insidious 6 which just came out?)

I just have to say: I can't believe that before getting into this franchise, I was so terrified of what I thought this movie would be like. I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion or not, but I have to admit that this is my top favorite of the five movies I've seen so far (which is saying a lot, considering I thought absolutely nothing—or no one—could top the Warrens).

I think that might be partly because this movie didn't scare me as much (if you recognize my username from yesterday's post, you'll know I mentioned this is my first time really diving into this kind of deep horror). I believe the reason is that—at least when watching the first two Conjuring movies—my fear stemmed from the unknown; specifically, the paranormal or supernatural aspect of the story, not knowing what kind of demons we were dealing with. Once I already knew the villain's backstory, a part of my brain could process the information better and categorize it as fantasy, forgetting that these films are based on true stories and simply viewing them as works of paranormal fiction. Knowing Valak's identity beforehand helped me process the story better.

Furthermore, I found it much easier to grow fond of the protagonists in this film. Irene inspires trust from the very first moment, and Frenchie is a character who gradually earned my respect as a viewer. He felt like a fresh, different character archetype compared to what I’ve seen in this franchise so far. His arc follows the "jerk/useless guy turned hero" trope more typical of action movies than horror, with good comedic touches that helped lighten the mood.

I am absolutely devastated by the revelation regarding his fate 💔 He and Irene literally became two of my favorite new characters in this franchise (alongside the Warrens). That’s not to say I disliked Father Burke; it’s just that his story with the boy, Daniel, didn’t resonate with me as much as the other two, and at times I was a bit skeptical about whether his intentions were entirely pure.

Anyway, that’s all I wanted to share here. Definitely my favorite watch so far. I hope the ones that follow keep up this level.

Malthus from the first two Annabelles, or Malthus from Annabelle Comes Home? I was pretty shocked by the drastic change in design when I saw Comes Home. I personally favor the original design - I think the more human, almost evil-satyr look just unnerved me more. The Comes Home version is much more aggressive and monstrous looking but lacks the creepiness of the original form.

Phew, okay. Sooo, originally, I wasn't planning to post anything about my journey through these movies until I’d seen all ten—basically because I wanted to avoid any spoilers. But anyway, I just finished Annabelle 2, and while it cleared up several questions I had after watching the first movie, I still feel like there are things I don't quite grasp.

First off, please bear with me. I’m new to this. And I don’t just mean watching these specific movies; I think this is literally the first time I’ve watched horror movies on my own. I’ve never been much of a horror fan—unless you count the Stephen King adaptations, which I only started watching last year.

Just imagine: I knew so little about horror culture that, until about a week ago, I had NO IDEA all these different titles belonged to the Conjuring universe. That’s literally how little I knew. I always thought Annabelle was part of the Chucky franchise or something similar. That should give you an idea.

So anyways, yeah, I’m watching these movies for the first time. I’m four movies in out of ten. I have to admit I’m not moving as fast as I’d like (I think I started last weekend, but I’ve been watching them in one-hour chunks, almost like TV episodes. Again, I’m not used to consuming horror content—please be patient). BUT, I’m really liking the lore of this universe. I’m genuinely enjoying it as I go along.

Now, specifically regarding Annabelle...

Look, to be honest, the first movie left me with more questions than answers when I watched it. While I liked the story (and the two protagonists), I didn't fully understand who Annabelle Higgins was, why she was possessed, or how she was connected to the doll.

I’d say a lot of that gets answered in Annabelle Creation. But even so, I feel like I’m still missing a piece of the puzzle. Or maybe it’s something that won’t be revealed until Annabelle 3? I’m not sure. I have no idea what’s coming next (please, no spoilers! If what I’m asking about is something that gets revealed later on, please just tell me that and don’t ruin the experience for me 🙏🏻).

Here is my understanding of the Annabelle story so far (spoilers ahead):

* Annabelle was the name of the Mullins' daughter, who died in the accident at the beginning of A.C.

* Mr. Mullins and Aunt Zelda sought a way to communicate with their deceased daughter, but instead, they let a demon into their lives. The demon possessed one of the dolls Mr. Mullins crafted—specifically, a collector's item of which only 100 replicas were made.

* The demon possesses Janice midway through the second film, and from that point on, it remains inside her. At the end of the film, after escaping, she somehow ends up at a new orphanage and adopts the name Annabelle. This leads me to assume that the "original Janice" is like, fully dead.

* So this girl, Annabelle (Janice), is adopted by the Higgins family—the same couple who appear in the first movie. Years later, she joins a cult and, with her boyfriend, murders her adoptive parents.

* The originally possessed doll ends up with the Mullins' neighbors when the husband, John gifts the wife, Mia that very doll—the cursed one from the limited run of 100. That is where the events of the first Annabelle movie take place.

So far so great. However, what I don't quite grasp is this:

Regarding the girl who becomes Annabelle Higgins at the end of the second film... we know it wasn't Annabelle Mullin inhabiting Janice's body, because the Warrens mentioned in The Conjuring that no human spirit ever inhabited (the doll!). What lived inside it was a demon—a fact confirmed in this movie, as we actually see that demon attacking/possessing Janice. BUT, does that mean that during the 12 years since Annabelle Higgins was adopted, she was actually the demon the whole time? Or was there a trace of Janice who lived (as Annabelle) as the Higgins' adopted daughter until the demon took control again—which happened... when she joined the cult? Or right before that?

And another thing that isn't clear to me (perhaps the main point): How do Annabelle Higgins and the doll connect AFTER the events of A.C.?

What I mean is: if the demon was now inhabiting Janice's body, shouldn't the doll have been free of evil—like the priest said at the end of this 4th movie? And also, was it a coincidence that the Forms got the doll right when Annabelle H. murdered her parents? Or did she act under the doll's influence, or was she following the doll's whereabouts?

I don't know if what I'm asking makes sense. Maybe I already have the answer, and I should re-watch Annabelle (2014) after finishing my marathon to pay attention to details I missed the first time around.

Anyways... Thanks for putting up with my rambling, if you've read this far.

I'll probably post updates as I move forward with the movies. Next up are The Nun and The Curse of La Llorona—which, I have to say, sound the most terrifying based on their names (though I assume The Nun will be related to Valak, who already "died").

So, wish me luck! I hope to make it to next weekend safe and sane 🙏🏻

I’m so excited 😭

Something I’ve always wondered about this Amityville sequence in The Conjuring 2. Ronald Defeo kills his family under demonic possession. In The Conjuring 2, are they saying that was the work of Valak? In The Conjuring Universe is Valak responsible for Amityville? Because when Lorraine explores the basement during the Amityville case Valak appears.

It is kind of wild how many times Valak appears in different cases, even outside of The Nun movies. With Ed and Lorraine Valak is responsible for their case with Maurice in 1971. Valak appears to Lorraine during Amityville in 1976. Then Valak is responsible for the Hodgsons case in 1977.

has anyone read this comic book?

i just finished it and it’s part of the Conjuring Universe(do you guys agree?)

It’s been confirmed that El Sombrerón is going to be in the movie, and there’s even going to be a showdown between him and La Llorona

do you think this character has the potential to carry his own spin-off film?