-
Website
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/ -
Original page
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/drag-me-to-hell-10-things-i-liked-5-i-didnt.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
The further she went in the film, the more she seemed to not really take responsibility for that initial action. When she showed at Ganush's house, she offered a flimsy apology. She tried to pass the buck of her problems off on not only her co-worker, but any person she came upon in the diner.
Yeah, being sent to Hell is excessive, that's what many instantly think when wronged. Somebody cuts you off in traffic, you wish them dead. There's no rhyme or reason to emotion when you feel as if you've been wronged.
That's what I found great about this flick. There's a moral grey area with Christine, but it's a debatable issue.
Let's also not forget that this gypsy is presumably the same one who sentenced the child to hell for eternity after he stole a necklace - which he tried to return.
Also, don't forget that really that quote is in no way related to me saying that to be considered evil all one has to do is not do good. What happened to being neutral?
You wondered if all it took to be a villian now was to not do good... I have to say yes on that, but only in the sense that if you had the choice to do good in the first place. Yeah, she defaulted on her mortgage twice, but Christine's reasoning to not help her is what, in my opinion, damned her. Not because she didn't want to, but because it was for selfish reasoning.
I'm liking this debate. :)
It felt as though there was no resolution as Mrs Ganush died before any retribution was extracted by Christine and so she escaped any punishment within the structure of the film. Of course Mrs Ganush conceivably could have been sent to hell for practicing the dark arts, invoking demons and being prideful (illustrated both by her hurt pride after begging and her refusal to live with relatives) but it’s never alluded to.
Also, I agree with what was said about the audio cues, I thought that they set a lot of tension which wasn’t followed through with anything to actually make you jump. Those complaints aside I did enjoy the film and thought that the performances of Alison Lohman, Justin Long, Lorna Raver and Dileep Rao where great.
But I gotta say, the movie makes it easy to understand why Christine winds up with the fate she does. The movie implies that her nice gal persona might just be an act, that she's a 'phony' - hence the reveal that she used to be fat, that she grew up on a farm, etc. - she's masking who she really is. In the end, the guy she was competing with for the new job would have gotten sacked anyway, she didn't need to deny the loan. She killed her cat thinking that would alleviate the curse, continually blamed others rather than own up that she hurt Ganush (even at the seance) and she contemplated - for a good while - condemning someone else to hell to save her own skin. She never really does anything SUPER EVIL or anything, but it does seem to all add up to justify the Tales From The Crypt-style ending.
Anyway, just my two cents.
But I kind of agree with Troy - except for her decisions not to give the button (or what she thought was the button) to anyone in the diner, everything Christine does is for selfish reasons. She doesn't deny the bank loan because it's in the bank's best interest, but because it's in HER best interests. When she finds out that making an animal sacrifice might work, she doesn't only go against her own stated beliefs (suggesting that they, like many other things about her) are a sham, but she kills her own pet.
Also, I think the curse was motivated more out of a sense of wronged dignity than the loan denial. Ganush doesn't curse Christine after being denied the loan, but after Christine freaks out and calls security on her. Christine is so focused on her own career path, her own desire to get the promotion and presumably the money that comes along with it, to get away from her own (shameful to her) past that she never figures out that her actions brought shame to Ganush - a serious offense in gypsy culture. She never saw Ganush as anything other than a stepping-stone or an obstacle - even when she sort of took responsibility for denying the loan, she still didn't understand the real, personal issue.
But even with all that - does Christine DESERVE eternal hell? Maybe not. But people don't always get what they deserve. Sometimes they get what they're cursed with.
Drag Me To Hell > Spiderman. Am I right?
it's not anything approaching a horror movie. Wasn't a fan and if this is what we can expect from Raimi's 'return to horror' I'll pass on any future projects he's in.
No one ever grappled with whether or not the victim deserved it when watching those films, for that would be over-analyzing such a simple pleasure. They just watched from the comfort of their theater seat and went along for the ride.
DRAG reminded me of Peter Jackson's Dead-Alive or Stuart Gordon's Re-Animator Series, and it felt good to see a movie that allowed me to relive the times when I laughed at very dark humor and cheered for the characters to ultimately get it. The jump scares and sound design were reminiscent of an actual ride thru an amusement park haunted house, & though there were insignificant plot holes the pace never relented once it began.
Sam Raimi said in an interview that he wanted Christine's character to have that "moral gray area" aspect to her so that the audience would relate and essentially bear her sin as well thru empathy, I believed he succeeded greatly with all the discussion over the ending. I loved it, for sentimental reasons perhaps, but I can't deny it.
I think it was a fun movie overall and didn't put too much expectations on it's seriousness. I was pleased and impressed by the interesting instances of moral ambiguity. My one big agreement that bothered me a lot and took me out of the movies flow was that significant plot hole, that was mentioned, when Justin Longs character came and just paid for the seance without ever having been told. But that felt like there could have been a missing scene that was cut-out. Maybe it will end up on the DVD's deleted scenes feature.
I don't agree with the assessment of Christine being a bad person in sheep's clothing. Or that the ending was at all morally justifiable for her "crimes". I don't find her actions that were supposed to show her morality regressing, to be at all, convincing. I see her more as a generally good person who becomes desperate and the need for survival makes her became a stronger person because of this experience but was true to her inner self in the end. If we were to judge her on her supposedly bad and selfish actions, Raimi should have taken her desperation to the edge. This is where he failed. Because I think her actions aren't far from what any rational person would do in that situation. She was faced with being physically tortured for eternity to hell!!!! This is not like finding $100 and deciding whether to turn it in or buy yourself shoes.
She was given two ways out: to pass the buck and animal sacrifice. Now I'll give you that she betrayed her own self, to kill that cat. (for me, this isn't so bad. An animal is going to die for a burger I'm eating) But the contemplation of passing the buck is not enough of a crime. When desperate for your own survival, I don't care who you are or how good you think you are, you would contemplate that route as she did. Any rational person faced with eternal damnation would as well. But her final actions of refusing to pass on the buck are dismissed? So now even human thoughts can be judged.
The problem I had with Raimi's moral underpinnings is that good and bad is black and white, survival is not at all a convincing context, and there is no such thing as redemption. There was no true alternative for Christine. Raimi wants her to tell herself that she sinned and she probably does deserving to go to hell. End of story.
Although none of this really matters. Whether she was true to herself or a conniving bitch, there was no way she wasn't going to hell. When you're cursed, it doesn't matter. The devil will take you without caring what you did. It's easier to just go for the ride and don't think to much.
This, to me, was one of the film's most enjoyable and dastardly aspects!
I agree with alot of what you have said about this film. Jump scenes and simple audio cues are what make this film "Scary"if you get my meaning. I unfortuanly fall into the category of people who Are hypersensitive to large sound changes due to above average hearing, although if there was a rather loud-from-quiet sound on sesame street I would still jump.
Following the theme of that which we don't understand/is not real, I believe this movie has alot of similarities of White noise, with its LFQ and The fact that the protagonist spends a large majority of the film unable to physically see the potential threat. Not being able to use our primary senses to see a threat leads almost straight away to fear.
This film poses the same self reflecting questions as other notables like The Saw series and white noise.
The question That is it possible? Could this ever happen to me? And, "What would I do if I was in this situation"
Though I do think that blatant violence and various liquids apon the protagonist was a bit over used, and in some sections the simplified script and acting was downright annoying " Re: looking over her shoulder eyes down, very slowly and then lifting after she has reached as far as she can" - I saw this happen exactly the same way 7 times.
I do think the Hell theme worked very well although the demon was portrayed in some instances as being "devilish" Cloven feet and horns on the head in the shadows. The fact that every major religion has some kind of hell makes it cross-relatable and yeah.
I have to disagree with Chris, as she did not make the decision to impress the in laws, but she was recalling the talk she had with "jacks" and about her "ability" to make hard decisions. She believed that if she could make one, it would impress apon jacks in giving her the position.
Personally I did find this movie on the scary side. I am not a "wimp" etc. The LTQ scenes did affect me and also the fact that however daft it may seem, I am superstitious and I believe that science does rule over god, but there are still things that are unexplained. This is why I would be peturbed watching this film, but feel perfectly fine watching any of the saw series, as I know that there isn't the faintest possibility of this happening, rather Probability. Knowing something can and may happen is more reassuring than something unknown.
The ending! Ha.. Unlike alot of people, I did not see this coming. I suspected something when the camera focused on the botton of the car while she was searching and if you look just as the first time the camera goes down there there are lots of notes and I believe a car mat. On the bottom and slightly under the mat is the one she wanted to pick up.
Sam purposely has done the ending this way. Not as a way of saying " I want to be different than everyone else" But in a way to make you actually get angry/upset. Sure we all love simple start-problem-problem solved-end films but I think he has done a brilliant job.
Still, I though that after all she did throughout the film, and the final penance of telling her boyfriend that SHE indeed did withhold the loan and it was her choice; I would have thought that perhaphs she would have been redeemed.
This may sound funny but heres a alternate I just though up.
Say its the same scene at the train station, shes just embraced him and told him the stuff and then he reaches into his pocket and pulls out the envelope and the envelope is damaged abit so she can see where the item inside the envelope is.
So he holds the envelope up and says " Thanks so much for this gift.. I really really appreciate it etc etc etc," only she can see that its not the coin but its the button.. Then she looks all horrified and then he gets taken, not realizing that the button is inside.
Of course the dialogue would be expanded apon and etc.. But I think that would have been alot better. Then after all the suffering she has been through, she would have to know that she sent him to hell.
Im sure what ive said will be debated/dismissed, but i hope ive been able to add to what you have said.
Tzeleniz
Ms. Brown's actions (compulsive lying, allowing Mrs. Ganush's house to be taken, and then attempting to take her soul by giving her the button) were far from innocent. Was her fate excessive? Of course. It was a horror movie. At least she was an adult. The beginning is even more unfair.
I have to agree the humor was excessive. Dark humor from lines and facial expressions, fine. Vomit, nosebleeds, and excessive gore, unnecessary. This is the first new horror movie I've seen in seven years that met my very minimum for a scary premise. I'd like to see a horror movie with eternal stakes that conveys the fear rather than hiding it with humor.
People can easily make seemingly stupid mistakes when they are panicked and crunched for time as Ms. Brown was in the car. That the film does not dot every i and cross every t does not constitute plot holes. We don't need to see Ms. Brown tell Mr. Dalton that she has to come up with $10,000 cash. We can infer that she did tell him, or that he found out another way. How he finds out is not important to the plot. What is important is that he puts his own beliefs aside and believes in her.
Saying you are sorry for not extending credit to a person after you sent them to Hell is hardly penance. If she was really sorry, she would have relied on Divine mercy, and not passed the button to Mrs. Ganush (though given that Mrs. Ganush did initiate the curse, sending her to Hell would have been a little less unjust than sending Ms. Brown.)
Sequel: I can't really see a sequel. If there was, it would probably be about Mr. Dalton's futile attempts to rescue his almost fiancee. (Or someone could give a town a cursed daycare and attempt to damn a whole bunch of people.) If Ms. Brown was really dragged to Hell, then she has zero hope of escape. If it was possible for her to escape, then it would not be eternal. Given a long enough timeline, anything possible will happen, otherwise it cannot be said to be possible. Ms. Brown cannot both burn for eternity, and burn for a hundred 9^^^^^9^^9 gazillion years and then escape. It is one or the other.
That girl did not deserve that ending.... Not cool, even in a comedy.
While we're on the topic of bad writing. For a movie that wanted to focus more on story rather than gore, it sure had a dumb premise. Christine's offense just was not bad enough to warrant being sent to hell. I get it, Raimi was trying to tell a morality tale. Christine betrayed her values for selfish reasons, blah, blah, blah. But the punishment just didn't fit the crime. So, without the gory over-the-top effects we've come to expect from Raimi to distract us from the weak story...all we're left with is the weak story.