I just watched Drag me to Hell last night. Not my first screening, but the first since it was released back in 2009. And you know what, the movie is still entertaining. But with almost any movie, there’s a line between those who love it and those who hate it and there are moderates who thought the movie was…”uh, okay.” I’m not entirely sure how trustworthy Rotten Tomatoes is anymore with movie reviews, however, I still often jump over before writing my own review and was surprised to see the rating difference between critics and audiences for Drag me to Hell. Typically, when it comes to horror, audiences will on average adore the film while critics bash it to a pulp with a sledge hammer. Horror has never been a respectable genre of storytelling. When horror has been deemed worthy, the powers that be typically label the work as thriller or even…(gasp!) drama. Consider one of the most highly decorated horror film, The Silence of the Lambs (1991), which has sense been cast into the realm as “crime drama…” Seriously…a movie about a guy who eats people helping catch a guy who skins people in order to make a woman-suit is considered a “crime-drama,” a gene that includes all the Godfather movies, Heat, The Usual Suspects, Fargo, The Departed, The Dark Knight, Furious 7, Casino and just about every other gangsta movie? I think my point has been made.
And of course I’ve gotten waaaaay of track here.
Back to the critics verses audience reactions.
According to Rotten Tomatoes (carefully placed trust), the critics adored Drag me to Hell, giving the movie a whopping 92% “fresh” rating, while audiences seemed more ho-hum with a 61% “fresh” rating. Despite the movie review website’s precarious standing with most movie nerds, I’d say they pretty much nailed Drag me to Hell. Critics, for the most part, watched the movie for as it was, just another Sam Raimi flick with a smart story surrounding mortgage and recession and selling all your belongings and still not being able to afford to repay the debt. They saw Drag me to Hell as both entertaining and a bit tongue-in-cheek on the social commentary. Audiences were less enthusiastic. Based on some of the review and statements I’ve read, most of everyone had expected a return to form for Raimi, the genius who gave us the eternally awesome Evil Dead trilogy (The Evil Dead I & II, and Army of Darkness). According to on average audience repose, what they got instead of the expected “Evil Dead-” esk movie, was something more messy and less funny as Army of Darkness. Many believed the acting was cheesy, particularly with the casting of Justin Long. There was also more than desired amounts of CGI and pointless jump scares. My assumption with what disappointed audiences was the odd mixture of comedy and horror, for many the film failed to capture the classic formula of Raimi’s early romps.
Here’s a quick fire synopsis:
Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) has a loving boyfriend (Justin Long) and a great job at a Los Angeles bank. But her heavenly life becomes hellish when, in an effort to impress her boss, she denies an old woman’s request for an extension on her home loan. In retaliation, the crone places a curse on Christine, threatening her soul with eternal damnation. Christine seeks a psychic’s help to break the curse, but the price to save her soul may be more than she can pay.
Pretty much cut and dry. Nothing complicated, and considering the era of recession and people all over the United States losing their homes in the 2008-2010 mortgage crisis, pretty much on point with the troubles of the day and age. And when we stop and think about it, isn’t that what horror is supposed to do? To look outward at society and then bring those questions into the plane of fictionalized storytelling in order for us to embed those questions, to see them from another perspective? Well…I think its understandable why critics loved the movie. However, I’m still confused on why audiences were less enthused. For me, yes, the movie can be faulted on a few glaring issues. The ringer for me was the use of CGI. Thankfully, the use of CGI was limited to a few scenes, however, one of those sequences could have been wonderfully done with practical effects. The part when the gypsy is attacking Christine in the shed and the heroine drops an anvil on the old woman’s head. How much more wonderful had the scene been done with real practical effects… Personally, that is one of my few laments with Drag me to Hell. Otherwise, the movie, I thought, was fantastic. The opening scene is chilling. Demonic movies typically get under my skin, and not only watching this young boy, but listening to him being dragged to hell…well, I’m sure you can imagine. As for the comedy, Raimi has an interesting taste of balance. Though admittedly, there seemed to be far few laughs in this one then in his previous horror movies. And maybe we’ve discovered why most of the audiences felt the pacing was off, maybe they’d ventured out to the theater hoping to see the same gag level as Army of Darkness. But that’s not what Drag me to Hell was about, it wasn’t a spoof or even a satire. In fact, if we could gauge Raimi’s most beloved horror movies on a scale of satire, with The Evil Dead (1981) as a (at least) semi-serious film, all the way up to Army of Darkness (1992, and by-the-way, is labeled as fantasy…see! Just saying, horror gets not respect!), with The Evil Dead II (1987) somewhere in the middle, I’d say Drag me to Hell is just a tad below The Evil Dead II on a scale of comedy verses horror balance. There were some silly and over-the-top sequences, but the horror trumped the laughs.
This is of course just my opinion. If you haven’t seen this one, I’d definitely add it to the list of must watch Raimi pictures. Drag me to Hell was creepy, fun, gross, and socially imaginative.
My Review: 5/5
November 5, 2015 | Categories: Horror, Reviews | Tags: Army of Darkness, Demonic, Drag me to Hell, Horror, Justin Long, mortgage crisis, movie review, recession, Reviews, Sam Raimi, social commentary, The Evil Dead | Leave a comment