If you hate this movie than

I absolutely love all forms of horror movies and never shy away from watching one with tons of gore. While I enjoyed High Tension for what it was and found it quite realistic in its depictions of gore and violence, I still can't get over the ending. So many people on here defend the ending by simply stating, oh she's crazy so everything you saw didn't actually happen because she's crazy and she imagined it all. Or, she's explaining her side of the story to the police so she's making up parts to act like she was a victim. To me, this movie would have worked great if it was exactly what we saw. Some sick, demented killer slaughtering a poor, innocent family and kidnapping the main characters best friend. Why the director felt the need to throw in this "twist" ending, which contradicts a lot of what we watched over the previous two hours, is beyond me. But throwing out a simple - "oh she's crazy, so what you saw you didn't see" isn't a valid explanation. I just think the director thought - "Hey, my movie is pretty good, but I want to set it apart from another violence/horror movie. I know, I'll add some weird twist at the end that nobody would expect, and then pretend like nothing actually happened". I dunno, it's just my opinion, but I was enjoying the movie just fine before she was revealed as being the killer. My two cents anyways.