Average User Rating: 
Drag Me To Hell (PG-13)
Most people know director Sam Raimi for his blockbuster Spider-Man movies—or perhaps from A Simple Plan, his underappreciated tragic tale of greed. But he first burst onto the scene in the ‘80s with the Evil Dead series—over-the-top campy horror films that were large on both gore and laughs. Well he’s come back to mine that same vein in his latest film, Drag Me to Hell
Most teenagers won’t be familiar with, or care about, his previous horror films; they’ll only know that this is a horror film that’s only rated PG-13."At the moment she has to make her choice, I want the audience to make that choice with her. They sin with her."
Make no mistakes: This is not the torture-porn horror that’s (unfortunately) been so prevalent in recent years, as seen in films such as Hostel and the Saw franchise. Nor is it another American remake of a better-done Japanese horror film. Raimi’s horror makes you cringe and laugh at the same time—it’s quite a feat.
The film opens with a bang, as a couple brings their young son to a medium. He’s stolen a gypsy necklace and been cursed. The poor child is thrown over a balcony, and the ground literally opens up and spectral hands reach out of the depths and drag him down to “hell.”
Fast-forward a few years and the main story revolves around Christine Brown (Alison Lohman), a sweet young loan officer who’s dating college professor Clay Dalton (Justin Long) and trying to move up in the world. Clay’s family is very wealthy, and they don’t approve of him dating a “farm girl” when he could do so much better. So Christine listens to speech CDs on the way into work to get rid of her drawl, and she says no to sweets because she used to be heavy as a teenager. She’s doing everything she can to “better” herself and win the approval of Clay’s parents.
She’s also up for a big promotion at work, but she’s got competition in the form of sleazy Stu Rubin (Reggie Lee), who also wants the job. Trouble begins when Mrs. Ganush comes in looking for an extension on her home payment. She’s one of the most hilariously gruesome old ladies I’ve ever seen in film. Christine is forced to make a choice between the compassionate thing for this woman and the best thing for the bank. She sides with the bank.
This leads to a well-done, disgusting, and funny fight between Christine and Mrs. Ganush in a parking garage. When all is said and done, Mrs. Ganush has managed to curse Christine, using a button from her coat.
What’s interesting is the moral dilemma Raimi (who co-wrote the film with his brother), gives Christine. She’s just doing her job, and it’s neither her nor the bank’s fault that Mrs. Ganush can’t pay. So is it wrong to disallow the extension? In an interview, Raimi said, “This is a young woman who thinks she’s a good person, but she acts out of greed….At the moment she has to make her choice, I want the audience to make that choice with her. They sin with her.”
So now she’s tormented by a Lamia, an evil spirit that will make Christine’s life hell for three days before pulling her down to the real thing. So she decides to visit a shaman to help her get rid of the curse. His suggestions include blood sacrifice (not Christ’s, mind you, but an animal), and attending a séance complete with human and animal possessions.
When none of that works, she finds out she can give the curse to someone else by turning over ownership of that cursed button. [Spoiler alert.] She has an opportunity to give the curse to Stu, the bank rival who did her wrong. But she chooses not to do that, and seeks another way. I won’t ruin the saw-it-coming-from-a-mile-away ending, but it does fit the tone of the film well.
I’m not recommending you or your teenagers see this, despite how well done it is. But we know teenagers will see it, and there’s so much wonky theology here that it would be irresponsible of us to just let it float out there, unanswered and unaddressed. If you're dragged to this film, at least be prepared.
Rated PG-13 for sequences of horror violence, terror, disturbing images and language.
Discussion Questions:
Scott Firestone IV is the associate editor for Group Magazine, online editor for youthministry.com, and a huge fan of music and movies.
This review first appeared on ministryandmedia.com. Go there. Take the tour. Sign up.
Well yes. We should not leave it to Raimi to teach proper theology. For one thing, even if my theory is correct, he is far too clever and subtle. According to the Medieval-style text shown us in the opening credits, the demon appears on "Day 1" in the form of swirling leaves. We first see spooky swirling leaves in the parking garage *before* Christine is attacked. These and multiple other clues show that the entity that attacks her in the parking garage is the demon. It is the demon who gives her the button (actually her own button). The demon (again in the form of swirling leaves) also leads her to Rham Jas, who becomes the demon's accomplice and a further source of information about the supposed "gypsy curse". The entire "gypsy curse" story is a lie. As for the boy, we are told only that he stole from gypsies, not that gypsies ever did anything to the boy. We are not told his story, but it probably roughly parallels that of Christine: (1) His own wickedness summoned the demon; (2) The demon probably encouraged him to blame gypsies; (3) the demon spent 3 days tempting him to commit greater evil; and (4) he has not been honest about the full extent of his crimes. Raimi spent an entire movie telling us the demon's methods. Why not believe him? Sin separates us from God, potentially damning us. I am aware of no rule that a ten-year old is too young to sin. The only safe rule regarding one's own sins is: repent and sin no more. The only safe rule regarding the sins of others is: judge not lest ye be judged. I would not say that a ten-year old should be damned for stealing; but neither would I say that a nonagenarian should be damned for turning a busload of children into meat pies. This is God's business. But, despite the "judge not" rule, I don't think fiction writers should necessarily be forbidden to tell stories about fictional characters getting dragged to Hell. And if a story teller tells me that a child goes to Hell, I will give the storyteller the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the child has somehow managed to earn his keep there. No, I was not particularly happy about seeing a cute ten-year old dragged to Hell. Neither, however, was I particularly happy about seeing an attractive 29-year old woman dragged to Hell. I probably would have been happier to see a hideous old hag dragged to Hell. But my human prejudices do not represent God's perspective. God loves all his children, including the old hag; He does not want to lose any of us. But He gave us all Free Will, and we all have the power to separate ourselves from Him if we choose.
John Whelan 3:06:56am on 6/23/2009
OffensiveThanks for your input, John. I don't think the filmmakers agree with Rham's tactics either--after all, none of them "work" to save Christine. And as I mentioned, Rham's idea of a blood sacrifice is the wrong one needed to save someone. But there *is* that troubling opening scene of the film. A young boy steals from a gypsy, and three days later he's dragged to hell--just like Christine. Did he "commit greater and greater acts of evil"? Did he try to damn the gypsy from whom he stole? Some faith traditions would argue whether he's even old enough to be damned by his actions. That's why it's so important to discuss these films with teenagers: so we can separate what's true from what's wonky. If you don't think that a worldview where we can be damned by another person, and three days later dragged to hell, is wonky, I'm just not sure what I can say to you.
Scott Firestone IV 9:06:45am on 6/22/2009
OffensiveThe review mentions "wonky theology". I surely agree that the spiritual ideas of Rham Jas (a highly suspicious and arguably sinister character) are "wonky", but I am not at all sure that Rham's ideas are that of the film. A Christian believes, of course, that no curse or dark power can, ultimately, trump the power of God. But this truth does not turn the film's events into theological nonsense. God could have saved Christine had she sought His aid, but she never did. Instead, she tries to beat the Devil at his own game, committing greater and greater acts of evil. The evidence is actually ambiguous as to whether Mrs. Ganush ever tries to damn Christine (lots of subtle clues point to her innocence). It is certain that Christine tries to damn Mrs. Ganush. It may not be possible to damn another person, but it is a sin to try. It is ultimately Christine's own choices that damn her, and there is nothing theologically wonky about that.
John Whelan 2:06:52am on 6/22/2009
OffensiveGreat review. I saw this yesterday with some former students (now in college). It does play on the idea, "If someone crosses you, do you cross them back?". And it shows the point at which revenge becomes 2 sided, and simply has no ending point. The strange part, is that this movie was neither gory or scary, it was really gross and funny at the same time. I laughed out loud quite a few times. Not the kind of movie to see if you are a cat-lover.
James 12:06:38pm on 6/09/2009
Offensive
GROUP MAGAZINE OFFER
Free Trial Issue! Subscribe Today. Click here to sign up.
* = required field