The ending matters.
I've just watched 'Asylum', a film of Gore Factor Five and a decent premise. A crazed doctor tortures patients in his asylum - nothing unusual about that - but this one continues to do so after he's died, and after the asylum has been refitted and put to another use. No Dume would do such a thing. That's just rude.
It was the ending that irked me. Like so many such films, the police are involved in a series of mysterious disappearances throughout but are rarely present for the finale. So how do the surviving characters explain a) how they are the only ones who know where the bodies are and b) why their fingerprints are all over the place?
That lack of resolution at the end of many horror stories annoys me. Surely those characters who survive are going to be number one suspects for the killings? The police are not famed for their acceptance of paranormal antagonists, especially since the main character has vanquished the monster and has no corpse to show for it. They are unlikely to live happily ever after unless they are happy living in a cell. What happens after the demon dies? For the characters its's not the end of the story.
There is room for a story framed within a prison, where an inmate tells their story to a lawyer or visitor or psychiatric assessor. First person or third limited, because the only story you can tell is what the prisoner experienced for themselves.
Start with the prisoner led into the assessor's office and end with the assessor recommending the prisoner be sent to the new secure psychiatric prison. Which is, by pure chance, located in the exact, now refurbished, building where the prisoner fought the demon and won.
When the killings start again, who do you think will get the blame?
There's a sequel in there too.
