Cheap Movie Endings That Upset Audiences

In the post-"Paranormal Activity" era, it seemed like every horror director was trying to capitalize on the renewed popularity of the found footage genre. But as it tends to happen when studios begin churning out similar films just to keep up with a trend, there were bound to be more than a few duds in this category. One of the most poorly executed found footage movies was director William Brent Bell's 2012 film "The Devil Inside," which follows documentary filmmaker Michael Schaefer and his partner, Isabella, as they team with Father Ben Rawlings to try to determine why her mother murdered three people during an exorcism decades before.

A captivating marketing campaign and genuinely chilling trailer meant that there was strong initial interest in the film, and it topped the box office on its opening weekend. But once word spread about the unsatisfying ending, potential viewers clearly lost motivation to actually see it, and it quickly plummeted down the ranks.

The film could have simply ended on a cliffhanger after the car accident that kills Michael and Ben, with Isabella mysteriously disappearing from the same car after becoming possessed. Instead of allowing audiences to simply imagine the possibilities, viewers were directed to a now-defunct website to look up more information about Isabella's case. Look, nobody goes to the movies expecting a homework assignment. As one Redditor put it, "It ends with buyers remorse." 

Ever since "The Sixth Sense," it seems like most of director M. Night Shyamalan's signature twist endings have been misses rather than hits. Although "Signs" is generally regarded as a standout entry in his filmography, accepting the ending requires some serious suspension of disbelief for a scientific explanation that just doesn't add up. To be fair, it's a film about an alien invasion, so it's not like every plot point could be 100% plausible, but there's a glaring hole in the reason behind the aliens' demise.

After aliens begin terrorizing the planet and target his family, former minister Graham Hess discovers that simply splashing the aliens with water will cause them to react as though they've been burned, and eventually, it kills them. Radio reports come through to confirm that the aliens are now quickly fleeing the planet as they have realized it's inhospitable for them.

Here's the problem: the Earth is 70% water, and there's plenty of moisture in the air. The aliens would have been exposed to water the moment they exited their ships without suits. One Reddit thread finds a number of users attempting to suss out whether some extra steps — like a theory that the aliens are demons and the water is holy water — might make the ending make sense.

H.G. Wells' science fiction novel "War of the Worlds" has spawned several adaptations. Most famously, it was the basis for a 1938 radio broadcast narrated by Orson Welles, which was so convincing that it caused a panic and left people gazing up at the sky, wondering if aliens had really touched down on Earth.

Steven Spielberg's 2005 film adaptation of "War of the Worlds" follows Ray Ferrier, a dockworker in New York who is estranged from his daughter Rachel and son Robbie. He ends up watching them while his ex-wife goes out of town to visit her parents in Boston. After a series of lightning strikes disrupt the power grid, Ray goes outside to see what's going on. To the horror of the gathered crowd, some sort of war machine rises from the ground and begins vaporizing people, causing mass destruction. It becomes clear that an alien species is behind the attack, sending Ray on a mission to protect his children and reunite them with their mother. In the end, the entire family miraculously survives and they find each other in Boston, while the aliens are killed off by the microbes that cover every surface on Earth.

As it turns out, even Spielberg agrees with fans who think the movie wraps up a little too easily. As Yahoo! reports, the legendary director is quoted in the book "James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction" as saying, "That film doesn't have a good ending. I never could figure out how to end that darn thing."

The "Indiana Jones" franchise has captivated audiences for decades. It began in 1981 with "Raiders of the Lost Ark," with "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" completing the trilogy before the decade was over. Nearly 20 years passed without another sequel, until "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" premiered in 2008 ... with an ending so nonsensical that it seemed like a disservice to the franchise.

The film basically wraps up by waving away the entire plot with a simple, overdone explanation: aliens. In fact, it feels like the last few scenes were inspired by episodes of "Ancient Aliens." And to top it all off, the final moments essentially just show Indy returning to normal life — after seeing a spaceship rise from underneath an ancient city and then watching some of his colleagues get sucked into a vortex, never to return. Indy witnessed some pretty wild supernatural happenings in his first three adventures, but somehow this sci-fi twist feels like something else entirely.

The fan community's negative reaction to "Crystal Skulls" is well documented at this point. Even when someone tries to be positive, as u/GrimReaperAngelof23 did with their Reddit thread "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull does not deserve all of the hate it gets," they're sure to get plenty of pushback. As u/Memnoch79 replied, "Your [sic] right. It deserved more. Absolutely hated the ending."

Have you ever seen a magician in action who was so skilled at sleight of hand that for just a moment, you were convinced that magic was real? That's basically the idea behind "Now You See Me," kicked up a few notches. The film follows a group of four highly talented illusionists called the Horsemen, who perform a signature, mind-blowing trick: they extract money from wealthy people's bank accounts and give it to the audience members. Naturally, the authorities become suspicious of their activities, and FBI agent Dylan Rhodes begins investigating them.

By the end of the film, it's revealed that Rhodes himself is actually an illusionist, too, and he's been working behind the scenes as the fifth Horseman the whole time. He was avenging his father's death by stealing from the people responsible. But is it a just a heist film? Nope — turns out that magic is real, too, and the Horsemen are all invited to join a secret society called the Eye. It's confounding enough that a vast majority of posts in the official r/Movies "Now You See Me" discussion thread, a vast majority of the replies address issues with the ending. With so little clarity over what's real and what's, well, merely an illusion, it's no wonder that audiences left theaters feeling confused. 

The two-part movie adaptation of Steven King's 1986 bestseller "It" did an admirable job bringing the source material to life and condensing it into just two cinematic servings, especially given the novel's 1,138-page length. Unfortunately, part of the condensation process means crafting an ending that ties up all the movie's many (many) themes and storylines, and according to a lot of viewers, the ties the filmmakers used are pretty cheap.

Specifically, a lot of fans objected to the way in which main antagonist Pennywise is finally defeated: by being bullied and abused into shriveling up and dissolving. That felt unfitting to many, especially given the clown's supposed ancient, cosmic power. Plus, the two films had up to that point featured a strong anti-bullying message. As Reddit user tk_woods put it simply, "Worst Villain death EVER. They literally just insulted pennywise to death. Or, as user Jdmcdona wrote with a bit more detail, "What was supposed to be a full on apocalyptic disaster during a psychic staring contest flying through space locked face to face with an immortal eldritch spider terror became... laughing at a clown. Again."

Even after what many consider the laughable, nonsensical confrontation with Pennywise, the subsequent emotional wrap-up didn't fare any better to some. User Jordan311R called it "laughably bad and corny," while user vaporwav3r called it "overly hokey and sentimental." Regardless of their wording, neither felt it particularly earned or effective.

The ending of the 1997 thriller "The Game" is an odd case. Since its release, fans and critics have voiced opposite opinions about its effectiveness, with one side calling it unsatisfying and invalidating, and the other side maintaining that the invalidation is the whole point. Yet whether or not the ending is just the intended final turn in the game, it's almost impossible to deny that it's cheap.

The plot of "The Game" revolves around Nicholas (Michael Douglas) becoming embroiled in a series of increasingly bizarre and existentially confusing circumstances. They ultimately include Nicholas getting buried alive and even shooting his own brother, so when it's revealed that everything was staged, no one was actually hurt, and nothing happened as Nicholas thought it did, a lot of viewers have been left feeling cheated.

When it comes to the ending of "The Game," it's not even necessary to search comment threads to find its detractors — they will find you. Many entire threads are devoted to venting over the ending, like the Reddit threads "David Fincher's The Game, a movie-ruining ending?" from Boss452, "The Game (1997)... what was the point?" from LifesAMitch, "The Game (1997) – The hell was that ?" from KunkyFong_, and the most direct of them all: "The ending of The Game (1997) is mind-blowingly stupid." from IngramsCeiling.

Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds" — like the vast majority of Hitchcock's films — is an excellent piece of cinema with an enduring legacy and pervasive influence. It introduced mainstream audiences to an entirely new brand of horror, one that generates effectiveness by remaining vague throughout and never explaining itself. A major component of that haunting ambiguity is the film's ending, which consists of a mere fade to black after the main characters drive away. Though the birds have ceased their assault for the moment, there is no answer as to whether or not they'll begin again, only heightening the terror. While the ending is an effective one, it's also undoubtedly a cheap one — especially given the fact that the original script included an answer and resolution, which Hitchcock simply cut and faded to black.

As Reddit user re5re5 put it, "Here's the thing, the ending of 'The Birds' was not satisfying. I wanted to know more about the cause of this [sic] 'attacks.'" Backing them up is a post by user transtwin, prompting Redditors with the thread "Great movies completely ruined by a bad ending?" User IrishFlukey named "The Birds" and had plenty of backup, like damienkarras1973, who added, "that movie had the strangest NON ending I've ever seen its like you think the movie is going to continue and then the credits roll and you're like what the hell was that? that's the end?? are you kidding me?"

Let us make something perfectly clear first: Guillermo del Toro's 2017 fantasy romance "The Shape of Water" is an excellent movie, whose awards, critical ratings, and fan support speak for themselves. There is simply no deriding the film as a whole, but that doesn't mean that every one of its parts is untouchable. Of course, the part we're referring to is the ending, specifically the final few moments in which heroine Elisa seemingly dies, only to be magically resurrected and granted gills by the Amphibian Man. For many, this sudden and unprecedented use of a drama-neutralizing superpower to undo previous story beats felt like a cop-out.

On her blog, Del Toro fan Pallavi Dandamudi opined. "[Since] the amphibian man was able to use his powers to give her gills, it reduces the impact of choices these characters have made. The pain of separation, the fear of losing each other, the willingness to hold on, all of it becomes meaningless ... a Dues [sic] Ex Machina ending." Over on Reddit, user southpawbarry created a post entitled "The Shape of Water – Using the most contrived plot device out there?" and elaborated (seemingly without any time to pause), "The subtle as a sledgehammer nod to self-healing with no explanation as to why in the middle of the movie comes back to save them at the end. Unoriginal, clichéd and contrived."

Netflix's 2018 horror "Bird Box" was released to an exceptionally odd response from fans and critics. On the one hand, it was a streaming sensation, becoming Netflix's most-watched movie within a month of release, and lighting up the cultural conversation for a brief period. On the other hand, even at the peak of its popularity, you would be hard-pressed to find many critics or even fans who praised the movie's overall quality. Common targets of criticism include the skeletal screenplay, expository dialogue, heavy (and unfavorable) comparison to "A Quiet Place," and of course, its cheap, clichéd ending.

There are multiple aspects of the ending that fans find grating, including the non-reveal that Malorie is the children's mother, the silly riverboat climax, and the cloying use of a school for the blind as the ultimate safe haven. In trying to encapsulate their aversion to the ending and its many flawed sequences succinctly, Reddit users have come up with a multitude of different adjectives. There's "rushed, cheesy and embarrassing" from blackwaltz9, "condescending and lazy" and a "hack job" from Red_Whites, and "most predictable thing ever" from mosha24. Perhaps most direct of all was KingPin300-1976, who called it "pure bulls***."

In all fairness to the cast and crew of "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker," there is no single ending that could please every one of the franchise's many millions (and likely billions) of fans. Even with that in mind, however, it's hard to call the ending the filmmakers ultimately chose anything but cheap.

For a great many fans, the ending of "The Rise of Skywalker" was the worst part of a trilogy that had already featured several objectionable sequences. But unlike the trilogy's other alleged faults, which most often offended by ignoring characters and canon from days of "Star Wars" past, the finale committed an even worse, and even cheaper sin: It blatantly erased the overarching story of its own trilogy. There are too many offenses to list, but taken all together, it felt to many fans that the ending was simply a cheap, rushed choice to drum up nostalgia instead of suitably investing in the fates of new characters and concepts.

Naturally, "Star Wars" fans had plenty to say about the unsatisfying ending, exemplified in threads like "Rewatched The Rise of Skywalker. The ending makes absolutely no sense. This is how you end the saga?" by bulletproof5fdp, and one deleted user's thread, titled "The ending of Rise of Skywalker literally killed Star Wars."