It Could Be Better.

 

Drag Me to Hell

2009

D: Sam Raimi

**********

Pros: One slightly funny moment, Good score

Cons: Horribly depressing, No good characters, Racism, Story does not support its awful moral, Not that funny

     

      I admit that my opinion of movies can sometimes be influenced by other peoples’ responses to them.  This is partially the case for Drag Me to Hell.  I first watched this movie expecting something fun from a former master of campy horror-comedy and honestly mistook it for a serious (if slightly campy) horror movie with a tragically depressing ending.  It essentially revolved around a woman (as well as a young child) getting undeservedly doomed to eternal fire of Hell without chance of redemption.  My initial reaction was more of the subjective disappointment that the movie wasn’t what I expected it to be, rather than genuine active hatred.  It wasn’t until later that people told me that this movie was, in fact, “funny.”  Oddly enough, this was supposed to improve my opinion on an inherently tragic event, but it reinforced my dislike of this film.  It was like my reaction when people justify their love of AVP: Requiem by saying, “I don’t think it’s a serious horror film, I just think it’s funny because I have a sick, disgusting sadistic tendency to laugh at watching small children and pregnant women killed by chestbursting aliens,” like that somehow saves face.  It makes me wonder why AVP:R trails this movie by 80% on Rotten Tomatoes even though their main appeal is that they're amusing to people who need to have their basements checked by the FBI.  Drag Me to Hell is seen by its fans to be a return to form by a once-great director.  If that’s what it was supposed to be, then it makes Prometheus and the Star Wars prequels look like resounding triumphs in that field.  If this is supposed to be Sam Raimi’s trying to be classic Sam Raimi, then it’s little wonder he gave up and made Oz: The Great and Powerful.  

        The movie opens 40 years in the past with a family taking their son to see medium Shaun San Dena (Flor de Maria Chahua) to exorcise him.  The child has been cursed by Gypsies after committing an act of theft against them, but due to some unexplained pettiness, they refused to lift the spell even after the family tried to return their possession.  San Dena’s séance fails, and the child is immediately dragged to Hell by demons in a rather terrifying scene.  It’s not funny cartoon Hell, either, just Hell.  The unparalleled agony of being burned alive for all eternity.  Let that sink in: forever.  For.  Ever.  And it happened to a child.  Amazingly, I have to explain why I’m offended by the very suggestion that this movie is supposed to be funny.

Above: humor, apparently.

The movie then takes us to present-day Los Angeles, where bank loan officer Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is competing with her completely unlikable coworker Stu (Reggie Lee) for a promotion when she is asked for a third mortgage extension by an old Romani named Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver).  There is one scene, however, in which Christine is tasked with training Stu on something, raising the question of why he's competing with her for this position.  Hoping to impress her boss (David Paymer), she denies the loan and Ganush responds by placing a curse on her, or more specifically on a button from her coat.  Worried, she turns to fortune teller Rham Jas (Dileep Rao, the only person in this movie who gets a happy ending), who informs her and her boyfriend Clay (Justin Long) that she is haunted by a demon.  It is the Lamia (v. Art Kimbro), which will haunt the owner of the button for three days until eventually dragging the poor soul into Hell.  Hijinks ensue.  At work, Christine projectile nosebleeds on her boss, who asks if any of the blood got into his mouth (his legitimate fear of catching a horrible disease is funny!).  Christine attempts to apologize to Mrs. Ganush, only to find out that the latter is dead.  Ganush’s granddaughter (Bojana Novakovic) callously tells her that she’s getting what she deserves (Gypsies are wonderful people!)   The soul of Mrs. Ganush haunts Christine, and the Lamia beats her up a few times. Fortunately, Bruce Campbell shows up with a shotgun, says an amusing one-liner and blows away the Lamia, who flies back with a few cartoonish backflips.  Oh, I’m sorry.  That’s what would have happened if the claim that this was “a classic Sam Raimi movie” wasn’t pure, unadulterated shit that had passed through the colons of a thousand bulls.  Instead, Christine attempts to appease the Lamia by stabbing her kitten to death.  Hilarity.

      Christine then employs an older Shaun San Dena (Adriana Barraza) to expel the demon.  Since her encounter in the first scene, San Dena knew that she would face off against the Lamia again, and this is her opportunity to make good after her initial failure.  She charges Christine $10,000 anyway.  In the resultant séance, San Dena manages to entrap the Lamia into the body of a goat, but he bites the hand of an assistant and possesses him before the goat can be stabbed.  The Lamia is temporarily rebuffed, but the exorcism was a failure and San Dena was killed during the events.  What a disappointing character arc.  This scene is cited by fans to be one of the funnier ones, due to the possessed goats’ speaking in the same stock dialogue spoken by every demon in every exorcism movie ever and the presence of a dancing demon.  I was a little too distracted by the inherent suspense of the situation to notice.  I know, I’m fucking insane, right?

      After this setback, Rham Jas tells Christine that she can make a gift of the button and transfer the curse onto someone else.  At first she considers giving the button to Stu, but changes her mind upon seeing how pathetic he is.  She briefly considers other random people, like a sickly old man (as if being ill indicates that he won’t mind eternal damnation).  She decides to give the button to the body of Mrs. Ganush, and succeeds in willing the envelope with the button to her.  She believes she is out of the woods and things are looking up for her.  While at a train station with Clay, she finds out over the phone that she has gotten the promotion because Stu confessed to stealing her work.  Clay tells her that he couldn’t find the collector’s coin he kept in an envelope (which was mentioned earlier in the movie), saying that it must have gotten mixed up with her envelope.  On cue, Christine is dragged into Hell by demons, leaving Clay with the button, which suggests that the curse will eventually damn him.  It’s an ending that’s almost as predictable as it is depressing.

       Watching this movie was like reading a Chick Tract.  Both depict afterlife is horribly unjust and cruel, doling out eternal damnation to poor, undeserving souls.  Unlike most people, I am far too put off by such subject matter to enjoy some cheese on the side.  Sprinkle some sugar on shit, and it still smells like shit.  I find it disgusting and unfair that someone would be sent to Hell just because of the whims of a Gypsie.  I know some people might tell me that “it’s just a movie,” but what is a movie supposed to do?  It’s a work of art that is supposed to provoke an emotion from its viewer, and sometimes have a message.  Considering that the central theme that the movie’s entire plot revolves around is inherently tragic and depressing, then why should I find it funny because of some intentional or unintentional comic relief?  This is why I don’t find Chick Tracts ironically amusing as many apparently do.  I might say that this is because I’m religious, but I don’t see how one has to believe in the afterlife to be shocked by the situation.  I would like to say that, unlike a Chick Tract, Drag Me to Hell is just a lark and does not reflect any twisted beliefs on its creator’s part, but apparently I cannot.  I love how the interview contains the classic "Your calling me bullshit on my bullshit just proves I'm right" logic.

        With this movie, Raimi was apparently trying to make the type of morality tale in which you relate to the character making the wrong choice, even though he arguably succeeded at making one already.  Stories that make sin relatable in order to provide a caveat against it are important, but it only works when the sin is really that bad.  Sam Rami really wants us to believe that Christine deserved eternal damnation for not giving a third extension on a mortgage to someone who gave no indication that she was going to pay it on time.  Such an action is extremely rare in this business, and anyone who signs off on such a deal arguably agrees to the realities of the banking world.  The movie conveniently ignores this, disingenuously framing it Christine’s decision as nothing more than “this old lady’s way of life vs. my promotion.”  Even if one were to consider this internal logic, would Christine’s conceding her promotion to Stu, who would almost certainly abuse his post and make the lives of her and her coworkers a living hell, be the right thing just because one person could not take responsibility for her delinquent mortgage payments and move in with her family?  Ganush clearly has a large family that is perfectly capable of taking care of her.  If they don’t feel like doing that, then they would be the bad guys in the situation and would have no right to judge the bank loan officer for doing her job.  Even if one were to concede Christine’s sin, she does not deserve the punishment.  And where the hell does the fate of that poor child at the beginning of the movie factor into this morality tale?  What about the properties of the curse that are decided by the one who cast it?  Christine is framed as the villain for trying to save her soul by resorting to measures based on rules that were imposed upon her.  The curse forces her to compromise her morals (sacrificing her kitten in spite of her vegetarianism, attempting to pawn the button off on someone else), to the point where her culpability is almost moot.  There is no provision for saving your soul through a selfless deed, as seen in All Dogs Go to Heaven or Bedazzled.  I'm pretty sure Christine's decision to not condemn Stu despite the latter's unlikeability qualifies.  Also,Ganush didn’t just curse Christine to Hell, she also cursed any poor soul who happened to end up owning it.  Ganush also seems not to care so much for the inherent wrongness of Christine’s act so much as the effect it had on her own self.  Also, if the movie's "humor" derives from our laughing at this poor woman's doom because she "deserves" it, then that not only makes the movie even more contemptible, it adds a level of hypocrisy to Raimi's supposed encouragement of self-aware soul-searching on the audience's part. 

       Amazingly, Raimi tries to pass off Ganush as the “victim,” ignoring the fact that a sense of victimhood, whether it be real or perceived, is a classic motivation for villainy.  Some of the most vicious and bloodthirsty people are such because they identify themselves as victims.  The disproportionate way in which she retaliates against Christine is more than enough to qualify her as the villain.  Raimi uses his claim to justify the potentially offensive depiction of the Romani people.  This is a highly dubious assertion on Rami’s part because only a crazy person would argue that Romani are depicted in a sympathetic light.  They are depicted as the worst people ever.  In this movie, they are evil sorcerers who use an inflated sense of victimhood to lash out against others for minor slights by cursing them with the literal worst conceivable thing that can happen to anyone.  It’s all just campy fun because it’s not like Romani still face prejudice nowadays.  I can’t help but think that Raimi is just saying Ganush is a victim as an afterthought to cover his ass on his terrible and offensive writing. 

       Another way in which this movie fails as a morality tale is its rejection of the very idea of redemption.  As long as someone lives, they have the opportunity to redeem themselves.  Yet Christine has no such recourse.  She’s given a scant three days to make good.  Her only conceivable chance at true redemption is destroyed when Mrs. Ganush dies shortly after the curse is set upon her, robbing her of a chance to apologize.  Instead, her salvation is dependent on digging her hole deeper.  Even making her do things that would logically send her to hell anyway.  Christine is literally damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.  This is disappointing when you consider the importance Raimi placed on redemption in Spider-Man 3.  Even Chick Tracts recognize the legitimacy of a deathbed recantation (at the expense of any other form of morality, though).  It’s not every day when a movie is so wrong that it inspires me to say something good about Spider-Man 3 and Jack Chick.  The absurd perversion of morality in Drag Me to Hell is enough to discredit any attempt to pass it off as an intelligent and well-written horror movie, and Raimi tends to Kafkatrap anyone who questions it.  To the credit of most of the movie’s fans, I hardly hear any of them backing Sam Raimi up on any of this crap.  They mostly seem to think it’s funny.            

      That being said, the movie isn’t really that funny.  I wanted to watch a classic Sam Raimi horror-comedy, and I simply didn’t get that.  It would take a lot of very strong humor to compensate for such a depressing plot, and the comic relief in this movie is disappointingly restrained.  I only remember one part in this movie that made me chuckle.  In the first scene you can hear the invisible Lamia bitchslap a random guy while trashing the room during the séance.  Hell, I think A Simple Plan is funnier movie simply because, in spite of the movie’s uncharacteristically serious tone, Raimi could not resist having one person blown into the air by a shotgun blast.  There are some cheesy elements and director trademarks, but they mostly serve as style rather than humor.  There are gross-out visuals and some intentional camp.  Not enough to work, but enough to spoil any serious tone the movie could have had.  The Classic appears as Mrs. Ganush's car.  However, the movie’s atmosphere is Sam Raimi-lite, as evidenced by the presence of bad CGI.  Nothing like the glory days of the Evil Dead series.  This movie fails not only as a movie, it fails as a Sam Raimi movie.  This is why I find it so baffling that it’s been embraced by the his fans.  You’d think that with such misplaced praise for one fallen creator, fanboys would have at least recognized that Titan A.E. was the first decent movie that Don Bluth had made in a decade.  Then again, what are humans if not collections of logical discrepancies held together by complex hydrocarbon molecules? 

      Camp and humor might not have been the right path anyway for such a depressing story.  While the Coens’ Fargo and Serious Man are ostentatiously dark comedies, I find their tragedy far outweighing their humor, much like in this movie.  Unlike this movie, the Coens depend on genuinely good, serious filmmaking to make intelligent movies.  You can’t just dress up the logical fallacies and depressing consequences of Drag Me to Hell’s story with camp and call it funny.  In effect, Drag Me to Hell is no jollier than Se7en, and I'd be willing to bet Se7en has stronger comic relief.  Perhaps if the consequences had been trivialized this might have worked.  Oddly enough, Raimi’s A Simple Plan demonstrated that he once realized this in a time before Quentin Tarantino used that voodoo curse to steal his powers a decade ago.  This is why Tarantino has basically been making Sam Raimi movies with better dialogue lately and why Sam Raimi hasn’t made a decent movie since Spider-Man 2.                    

     Long story short, I hate this movie.  The one good thing I can say about it (aside from its very rare humor) is that it has an excellent score by Christopher Young.  It’s also frustrating that I seem to be relatively alone in my opinion.  Even people who hated this movie seem to ignore its obvious flaws and dislike it for the wrong reasons (I noticed a similar trend with Shoot’em Up).  Many of them expected a serious horror film and found it too cheesy, while others clearly never liked Raimi’s movies to begin with.  I think it goes to show that Drag Me to Hell fails at both horror and comedy.  The only way Raimi could salvage this mistake is to admit it and maybe do a more genuinely light-hearted sequel to the movie, something along the lines of what he hinted at in the above interview.  After all, I believe in redemption.   

BONUS: My video review with Zucca for its 10th Anniversary