Terrible ending

I interpreted as the vampire framed Dees for the killings and was thus in the clear for awhile and taht was his motive.

My interpretation is that the murderer is not a vampire, instead he is a human. The movie did not mention that he stops murdering. He is revealing his "true" face because he has found a scapegoat, which in this case is Dees.

Why couldn't the vampire simply have moved on to a different territory?

He doesn't have to go along with Katherine's story, nor does her story have to be discredited. Neither does he have to choose an alternative method of feeding.

It's not too difficult to imagine ways in which the ending (wrong as it may be) can work...

How do we know he stopped feeding? It's an assumption on your part. Perhaps the Night Flier decided to relocate to another country? It's unlikely that he would starve himself. My problem with the finale is the massacre in the airport lounge, the victims would not be sitting eating burgers or drinking milk shakes, during the massacre they would have made for the nearest exit, yet the bodies are in situ as if Renfield and creeped up on them unawares - not possible with the all the commotion we hear going on over Dees's radio..

This is my favorite SK adaptation, but I'm afraid it has one of the worst contrived and absurd endings I have ever seen:

-throughout the movie, Renfield follows his pattern of striking at small, isolated rural airports, landing at night, spending the following day with his victims and then killing them. Also, all of his victims were elderly people. He obviously tries to keep a low profile and shake off his tracks anyone who might be trying to catch him, especially Dees. Why he suddenly changes his M.O. in the end, striking at a relatively large airport, killing indiscriminately immediately after landing everyone there, including women and children? Such a move would bring every agency in the country looking for him, I guess that's not what you would really want if you were a lonely vampire flying around in a plane only at night...

-could Dees really be that stupid to enter Renfield's plane unarmed, knowing very well what he's capable of? Even better, when he gets inside the main terminal, and sees dozens and dozens of buthchered bodies, he proceeds deeper into the building to the rest room, although he knows that Renfield is still around somewhere.

-who/what is exactly Dwight Renfield? A vampire, Dracula, devil himself, Death personified, werewolf...? I believe in 'the less is more' approach in horror movies, but it doesn't really work when you give absolutely no clues as to the background of the main villain.

-under the influence of what opiate, narcotic, or drug would the investigators, forensics and detectives have to be to state that Dees, an average male, was capable of killing single-handedly somewhere around 50 people with an axe, without anyone subduing him, without a single survivor, or someone even escaping? This same goes for Renfield, but he's a supernatural creature, so we can use the suspension of disbelief when it comes to the Flier massacring so many people...

Even though the ending has no logic whatsoever, kudos to the crew for the superb gothic atmosphere and a great soundtrack! :-)

I'm of opposite opinion here. The intro was suitably intriguing. The second act was tired thriller elements on a mid level budget. The ending was delightfully over the top. The final 20 minutes at the airport massacre saved it from being another forgettable Stephen King adaptation. Equal parts surreal and gory with little inventive genre moments like how Dwight's invisible reflection pisses blood into the urinal.

Action Hero's Anthem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9Cpb61R-4U

Stephen King's endings are usually crap.