What an awful movie (spoiler alert).

[Compound]

Also I thought I should say: A good portion of horror films do have somewhat happy endings. So even non-happy endings are still "shocking" as some might say

Like what?  All I can remember is the 6 Saw movies and the four Final Destination movies, all 10 of which had miserable endings.  Well, Saw 6's ending is up in the air. 

The Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th movies had marginally happy endings which were basically meaningless Pyrrhic victories because the villain always came back by the end. 

Thrifty, a fairly large number of horror films have happy endings. The bad guy is defeated and the survivors are safe. And frankly, I would disagree with your observation that the Elm Street and Jason films were Pyrrhic. You're looking at them from the perspective of history. But in both series, there are several, "This is it. He's gone for good" endings where the film makers honestly expected that the film that they were making was the last film in the series.

But this is cyclical. Horror films oscillate between happy endings and "Rocks fall. Every body dies" ones. Most of the horror films from the 50s and 60s have the threat defeated and the hero and heroine standing triumphant. It wasn't really until the late 60s (And I'd probably blame Night of the Living Dead for this) where the grimdark endings started appearing. Look at most of the major horror films from the mid 70s: Rosemary's Baby, The Omen , The Stepford Women, the Exorcist.  The endings to those weren't particularly bright or cheerful.  The slasher films from the late 70s and early 80s actually swung the pendulum in the other direction. The first few were pyrrhic.  Leatherface? Still alive. Michael Myers? Escaped. Freddy? Defeated, maybe. Mrs. Voorhees? Dead, but the son is now active. But aside from those first films, the remainder settled down into a pattern. Psycho killer kills some folks, then dies at the end, leaving behind a small number of survivors. The sequels to the above films and the other major franchises all operated in that manner. Even Hellraiser ended with the Cenobites being banished, and Hellraiser pretty much defines a grimdark horror franchise. The only real exceptions to this formula are films with John Carpenter's name attached to them and zombie films..

The happy endings continued basically until early this decade, where the influx of Japanese and HK horror films, which were operating under different genre rules,  brought back the "It's not a horror film unless there's a total cast kill" meme, which is once again slightly percolating around Hollywood.

[mrbasehart]

I agree comlpetely with Compound, though I would add that there's a financial component to those endings too.  Horror movies are the most franchised genre in the industry, and can be incredibly profitable for studios.  Keeping the main villain alive, or somehow alluding to his survival, ensures that people who liked the first one will get more of the same in the second.  The effect it has on the quality of the movie is - to the people looking for profit - irrelevant.

I think Final Destination originally had a happy ending, but it really doesn't fit with the tone of inevitability of the movie.  The official ending is much more in keeping with the movie overall.

[Compound]

I think Final Destination originally had a happy ending, but it really doesn't fit with the tone of inevitability of the movie.  The official ending is much more in keeping with the movie overall.

Plus, it wasn't a very good ending.  It ended the film, but it wasn't very satisfying. It was rather like Rocky ending with Rocky getting a home mortgage loan.  Good for him, but you kinda wanted to see something a tad more interesting. 

[Thrifty]

Final Destination as I recall ended with one of the three survivors in France, thinking they were out of the woods, getting crushed by a neon sign.  By the time the sequel rolled around, a second survivor had holed up in a cabin for six months, then got killed by a stray brick the second he stepped outside.  The third had committed herself to a rubber room in an insane asylum, and ended up dying at the end of the sequel.

Granted, the heroine of FD2 did manage to win out in the end, after being dead for a few minutes then resuscitated.  So yes, FD2 had an interesting and happy ending.  And despite the ludicrous deaths, FD2 did a good job.  It established the idea of "death will find you when your time is up, no matter what", then established to the frightened victims "oh, but there's a way out".  Then in the end, that way out was utilized to save at least one of the victims.  It wasn't just pissed away the way Raimi did TWICE in Drag Me to Hell.

[Compound]

Final Destination as I recall ended with one of the three survivors in France, thinking they were out of the woods, getting crushed by a neon sign. 

Not true. He was still alive when the film ended. And comics have taught me that if I don't see a body he's not really dead.

By the time the sequel rolled around, a second survivor had holed up in a cabin for six months, then got killed by a stray brick the second he stepped outside.  The third had committed herself to a rubber room in an insane asylum, and ended up dying at the end of the sequel.

Granted, the heroine of FD2 did manage to win out in the end, after being dead for a few minutes then resuscitated.  So yes, FD2 had an interesting and happy ending.  And despite the ludicrous deaths, FD2 did a good job.  It established the idea of "death will find you when your time is up, no matter what", then established to the frightened victims "oh, but there's a way out".  Then in the end, that way out was utilized to save at least one of the victims.  It wasn't just pissed away the way Raimi did TWICE in Drag Me to Hell.

But once again, this is a horror film *and* a sequel. Yes, Devon Sawa got killed offscreen. (As did all of the PD 2 survivors in FD3d.) But deaths of offscreen people don't really count. Zombieland, for example, had 99% of the human race dead, but I wouldn't call it as a grim film. By the same token, Sawa's character's  death was probably less plot related and more "He wants more cash than we can afford" related. (Plus he seems to have been filming Slackers and Extreeeeeeme ops at the time.) The horror films with reoccurring characters in them are by far the exception, not the rule.  And even when a character returns, many times they're aren't played by the same actor, once again usually for budget reasons.

With a horror film, usually the most interesting character in the film is the killer, and that's who the folks want to see in the sequel, not the generic final girl. Obviously there are exceptions (Alice and Nancy in elm St., Ripley in Alien, Ash,  Jamie Lee in Halloween, Alice in Resident Evil, the various characters in Saw, and FD, which didn't have a visible killer) but for the most part, the other characters in these films aren't worth basing a film around. Leprechaun 2, for example, wouldn't have been better in Jenifer Aniston's character was in it. We've seen how most of these characters have reacted in these situations. We don't need to see them in the same situations again.

[Darth Macho]

Horror movie titles come in two varieties, 'Bait & Switch' ('Monster a Go-Go, It Conquered The World, The Blair Witch Project, Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, Friday the 13th Part IV: The Final Chapter) and 'You Get What Your Pay For' (The Stuff, Death Bed: The Bed That Eats, Leprechuan 4: In Space, Frankenhooker).

If a horror movie title contains a verb and there has been no actual depiction of the verb after 50 minutes of runtime then it will happen as part of the climax (Jason Goes to Hell, Scream Blacula Scream).

Gypsy curses can never be broken in a horror movie. They can be transferred to another character as a form of ironic punishment (Thinner) but by the end of the film they are guaranteed to extract their vengeance. 

In a horror movie a bland climax followed by a cheerful and curiously lengthy denouement is just a teaser for the abrupt shocking ending. For example, if LotR: Return of the King was a horror movie that scene with Frodo, Sam and the rest frolicking on the bed in slo-mo would've ended with Gollum leaping up from the edge of the mattress with a knife and a terrifying scream, then smash cut to credits.

Honestly, with a title like 'Drag Me to Hell' there's only two ways the movie can end. Now ask yourself, which ending would be more interesting? After being visually assaulted by toothless gypsies, vomit, evil goats and a bland blonde starlet committing some dark actions you should've known which answer the filmmakers would choose.

[Bob]

Ha-ha, you know, you are right!

[eegah]

We thought this movie was comically bad. I laughed myself silly at the over-the-top grossness; the plot twists were utterly predictable and all of the characters were cartoon-ish caricatures. I guess "silly" is the word I would use to describe it. I really don't get why it's so highly rated (92% on rottentomatoes.com ).

[Relaxing Dragon]

I'm pretty sure some of that stuff was supposed to be like that. Especially the over-the-top grossness, the idea there was to laugh.

[Thrifty]

We thought this movie was comically bad. I laughed myself silly at the over-the-top grossness; the plot twists were utterly predictable and all of the characters were cartoon-ish caricatures. I guess "silly" is the word I would use to describe it. I really don't get why it's so highly rated (92% on rottentomatoes.com ).

It seems like in the hands of any other director, these would count as incompetent film making.  Sam Raimi seems to have some sort of special license that lets him do silly over-the-top grossness in a dark horror movie and get away with it.

So what movie is this?  A horror movie or a comedy-horror? 

[Bob]

I'm pretty sure some of that stuff was supposed to be like that. Especially the over-the-top grossness, the idea there was to laugh.

I think that is a Sam Raimi calling card for his horror movies.    They are supposed to be a bit tongue in cheek.

[MrTorso]

I'm pretty sure some of that stuff was supposed to be like that. Especially the over-the-top grossness, the idea there was to laugh.

I think that is a Sam Raimi calling card for his horror movies.    They are supposed to be a bit tongue in cheek.

At least after the first Evil Dead.  With that one he wanted to make a straight up horror flick since that was what was making money at the time. When ED2 came around they let loose with their love of comedy and Three Stooges.  If you can find them there are bootlegs out there with their (Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell, Scott Spiegal, Josh Becker) old super 8 shorts. Fun stuff. All the evil hand stuff from Evil Dead 2 came from a short they did about the Hamburger Helper hand going crazy and attacking a housewife.

[Darth Geek]

I'm pretty sure some of that stuff was supposed to be like that. Especially the over-the-top grossness, the idea there was to laugh.

I think that is a Sam Raimi calling card for his horror movies.    They are supposed to be a bit tongue in cheek.

At least after the first Evil Dead.  With that one he wanted to make a straight up horror flick since that was what was making money at the time. When ED2 came around they let loose with their love of comedy and Three Stooges.  If you can find them there are bootlegs out there with their (Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell, Scott Spiegal, Josh Becker) old super 8 shorts. Fun stuff. All the evil hand stuff from Evil Dead 2 came from a short they did about the Hamburger Helper hand going crazy and attacking a housewife.

I heard about that on their commentary. I'd love to see some of their old stuff (particularly the one they used to get financing for Evil Dead)

[mrbasehart]

Bruce Campbell's autobiography is a fun read and has some little stories about all that.

[Darth Macho]

When I saw 'Drag Me to Hell' the theater was filled with teenaged couples that obviously had no idea what they were in for. After the first toothless gypsy attack the sound of whining girlfriends overshadowed the laughing boys. Then the girls started dragging the guys out one by one until I was practically the only person left to see the titular climax.

There's a kind of anti-audience subversiveness to the film in that they cast a young girl (Ellen Paige initially had the role) and then spend the entire time giving her the Bruce Campbell treatment: dunked in blood, smacked around, ridiculed, etc. It's rated PG-13 yet harder to sit through than 'Saw'... even for an old-school gorehound like me.

Think of it as an uncomfortability experiment.