13 Horror Films that Didn 039;t Need Sequels

Sometimes movie studios can't leave sufficiently alone. There are numerous, many horror movies that stand as classics in the genre, landmark masterpieces that changed horror to the better. Of course, if there's one hugely successful film, why not make more? It's almost guaranteed money, which is good, right? Not always. Here, in no particular order, are 13 horror films that spawned the worst sequels.
The Omen (1976) ' There are lots of reasons why this film is a classic: a remarkable performance (see what I did there? Gregory PECK?), creepy foreshadowing, along with the Antichrist. It's dark, tense, and haunting. And, yes, I could see why people would want to see what happened to Damien, yet ,, we know already. I haven't seen the TV series which is currently airing about the character either ' he or she is the Antichrist, he'll almost certainly bring in regards to the end around the globe. WE GET IT.
Psycho (1960) ' When you have an ending with such a good twist, you should not make more sequels. Hitchcock's 'Psycho' would have been a landmark, ushering within the 'modern' horror era, and it blew audiences and critics away. In the final, Norman Bates is locked up for the multiple homicides he's got committed. End of story. Or at least it should have been, but no, we have three more sequels that follow Norman after his release.
Scream (1996) ' Never carries a horror film been so meta. This combo of soap opera, social commentary, and horror film hit all of the right notes. It even spawned a new boogeyman for your '90s, Ghost Face. It must have ended there. The other three films inside series simply follow characters we loved too much down the queue, driving them to caricatures no longer enjoyable.
Jaws (1975) ' In the conclusion, the shark is killed. / How can it come back three more times? It's probably not the same shark inside the other films (I haven't seen them since they're universally panned), however.
The Birds (1963) ' The concept of birds swarming for no reason and wreaking havoc is scary. The idea that it can propel the plot of your entire film is proof of Hitchcock's brilliance. We did not need a TV movie that revisits the plot.
American Psycho (2000) ' Patrick Bateman cause 'American Psycho' scary. He is suave, cunning, vicious, and absolutely nuts (or perhaps he?). This movie was as groundbreaking mainly because it was controversial, and for good reason. But the final of the film, ambiguous because it is, did not warrant a sequel, let alone a sequel that turned Patrick Bateman into Rachael Newman.
Donnie Darko (2001) ' This is certainly one of my favorite movies ever. If you haven't seen this film, please stop reading and go watch it. 'Donnie Darko' has everything: wit, sass, pop culture references, time travel, a man in a creepy suit, the saddest song ever, and yes it paints some in the truest pictures of life ' that angst will not necessarily end in adolescence, there's always more to the story, and love could make the darkest moments a bit brighter. Also, it painted a total ending towards the story, all loose ends nicely tied. I won't acknowledge the sequel even exists away from this article.
Poltergeist (1982) ' Again, here's another film that tied up all of the storylines into one supernatural package. We failed to need two more sequels (although I did love the remake).
Hellraiser franchise (After II) '?? 'Hellraiser' and 'Hellbound: Hellraiser II' are awesome. Clive Barker did a fantastic job showcasing his talent for toeing the road between gore, beauty, pleasure, and pain, and that he did leave the ending open for a sequel (probably because he 'signed his life away' with all the contract to find the first one made and hoped for the franchise). And man, 'Hellbound' delivers ' especially because, finally, Julia is viewed as the real villain, which has been Barker's intention. But the rest in the franchise, whilst it does have some good one-liners and visuals, simply fails to deliver. A portion of me actually feels bad that they must be on Doug Bradley's CV, but at least they allow him to keep getting acting gigs, while he really is wonderful.
The Exorcist (1973) ' Simple, subliminally beautiful, and scary is when I would sum up this film: a little girl is possessed by the demon and must offer an exorcism. That's pretty simple, right? And the conclusion seems very final. But NO, Hollywood had to make two sequels and two prequels, only certainly one of which was anything good ('Exorcist III' is criminally underrated, but still unnecessary). Side note: if you wish to really be scared, please read the book. It is awesome.
The Lost Boys (1987) ' Most people were angry when the sequel was announced in 2008. Hollywood really should have taken note, instead of released that film, nor the next.
'Salem's Lot (1979) ' My favorite novel and one of my favorite horror films, this TV miniseries/film from horror master Tobe Hooper can be a classic among Stephen King adaptations. But wait, you say, they made a sequel? Yes, 'A Return to 'Salem's Lot,' plus it is probably the most horrendous movie I have ever had the displeasure of watching.
Universal Classics ' Yes, I'm going there. Universal invented the horror film, plus much more specifically, the monster movie. But we failed to need sequels for 'Dracula' at all and 'The Bride of Frankenstein' must have put the Frankenstein myth to bed. At the final of "The Wolf Man," Larry is killed. How do you go on after that? I love 'Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man,' but none of the other films featuring my beloved Larry Talbot are fantastic. Every classic monster got no less than two sequels, and nearly all were subpar.