Looking at this thru the lens of the five primary archetypes points out one of the weaknesses of the script and maybe my major complaint with it: the characters are very one-dimensional and interact in the most surface ways. Ellen doesn't seem to serve much purpose except to get the kitten out of the bank and make it easier to explain away how a 22 year old girl can afford to rent a house in Silverlake. Give her a roommate. Turning Ellen into a true Trickster could have done a lot for the script. Stu, who's a lower-level Nemesis, was also really obvious as a stereotypical worm. I did like the handling of the closest thing to a Mentor, Rham Jas. He starts out as the most obvious of obvious fortune teller hacks but ends up being more complex -- in it for the money but also seeming to really know the world of his stock and trade and truly wanting to rid the world of the Lamia. Again though, there seemed to be no real purpose to Milos and Rham could have been the one to get possessed and end up on the roof, kind of serving as a lesson there, too -- if you play with fire.... Ray's parents were also under utilized. As he never seems to care about their opinion of Stephanie, they're a bit of a false threat. So, overall, the script could have done with a few less characters while also making more of the ones it had. But, in the filmmakers defense, I wonder if this very surface approach isn't part of the tone. I haven't seen the film but have seen Evil Dead 2 and playing on stereotypes and keeping things at a very obvious, surface level seems to be what they find funny.

The roommate, Ellen, is not in the final film. Like you said, she felt unnecessary and the filmmakers must have realized that too. The parents, however, I do think serve a purpose. The mother actually warms up to her during the dinner conversation, saying she appreciate Stephanie's honesty and says she has "back bone", and in the film the mother even admits that her father had a drinking problem but she herself was too ashamed to ever talk about it. Basically, that scene has an arc which goes from distrust to acceptance to rejection. The reason Stephanie was gaining acceptance was because she was honest, talked about the farm, the cake recipe, her mother being an alcoholic - she opened up and stayed true to herself and her beliefs, something she should have done all along - not try to be someone she isn't. This scene and the interaction with the parents are important because they underline the theme of the story. Also, in the film, after Stephanie leaves the Dalton's house and the mother tells Ray (Clay in the film) to not go after her because she's a "sick girl", they cut to the next scene, leaving us in suspense whether or not he did defy his mother's wishes or not.

I agree that that scene was important for the reasons you list and think Stephanie temporarily winning the mother over was a nice touch, but still think the parents were under utilized in a big-picture way. If Ray had actually cared to some extent (even just a little) about what his parents thought it would have been a better use of them as a kind of jeopardy and raised the stakes on that dinner scene itself. Leaving the scene open ended in the film was a good call, as it puts just enough doubt in our minds about what Ray will do next, making it a surprise when he comes to Stephanie's aid with the money for the seance.

I see what you mean with the stakes and I agree. Ray should have been more on the fence - should he listen to his parents or not.

Another simple thing DMTH does well that makes all the difference -- finding a way to subvert its character types. This allows the characters to be relatable without being cliche. -Stephanie/Christine: She's a sweet, intelligent country girl...but coldly denies an extension to a desperate old lady. -Ray/Clay: He's an assistant professor who doesn't believe this curse nonsense...but he gives her the money for the seance anyway. Also, his interest in coins is not only a plot device that pays off later, but a good character detail -- he may be rich and handsome, but he's still kind of a nerd. Which is cute. -Trudy: She's a total snob at first...but she comes around upon hearing of Christine's mother's alcoholism. George doesn't seem to have to problem with Christine at all. Again, most movies would have them both be irredeemable jerks. -Mrs. Ganush: Before she's revealed to be a vengeful witch...she's just a lonely grandmother begging for help. -Rham Jas: He works a cheesy-looking like any other psychic...but he turns out to be the real deal. -Mr. Jacks: How many dumb/evil/sleazy bosses have we seen in the movies? He actually seems very fair and decent, despite working in a bank. -In the finished film, even Stu gets an added character twist (or two). When Christine tries to give him the button, we see he's no evil schemer -- just a pathetic loser trying to get ahead. But just when he's been humanized a little, we find out that he tried to pin the whole loan debacle on Christine even after their talk.

*at a cheesy-looking storefront