Talk:Drag Me to Hell

Homage to Night of the Demon

I'd added a Trivia section that referenced several similarities to the plot and devices to a 1957 horror film, Night of the Demon. It got removed soon thereafter, and I'm not certain why. I'm an editing n00b to be sure, but the content seemed pretty worthwhile. Original content available at http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Drag_Me_to_Hell&oldid=294910711. Any suggestions on allowing it to be restored? Aredubya (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored this. The best way to avoid that is remember wikipedia does not like Trivia sections (Just read WP:Trivia)! Try to get some critics to note these similarities. I've found two so far from the Mountain Xpress and Variety. I've used those and cited them. When you want to add information, try to find a good section in the article to place it. If all else fails, ask on the talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There's also a very strong parallel between this movie and the Stephen King book/movie Thinner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.49.218.154 (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Raimi's first directorial horror film in 17 years?

I find this inaccurate. The line is suggesting Raimi's last directorial horror film was Army of Darkness, released in 1992. Army of Darkness is a Comedy-Horror, and while it does contain horror elements it's largely a black comedy. Darkman (1990) is also not a horror film. The last horror film Raimi directed was 1987's Evil Dead II. As such I am changing the line from 17 years to 22 years. I'd suggest removing the line altogether if it wasn't for the fact the current TV spot is stating it's Sam Raimi's return to horror. Buuhan1 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Army of Darkness might have been a Comedy-Horror, but it's still horror. I recommend changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.5.50 (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it was a horror. It should be changed back in my opinion.--Blckhawk1234 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Plot needs editing

"Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is a hard-working person with only a sex good job" This just doesn't make sense. I'd edit it, but I'm unfamiliar with the plot, so I'm not what it's supposed to be saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.229.30 (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article had several spots where people had inserted sexually explicit words. Glad to see someone caught it before I could edit it out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blairco (talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and removed the "Fuck ya'll LOL" header and put in "Film Overview". If there's a more appropriate title that Wikipedia generally prefers (plot overview, film summary, etc) someone go ahead and do that!

Reviews

given that the reviews are overwhelmingly positive, it would seem that far too many negative and lukewarm reviews are quoted in the reception section.

I've made the reviews more balenced. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"her refusal to extend a loan for Mrs. Ganush in order to impress her boss"

The article mentions that the plot involves Christine Brown and "her refusal to extend a loan for Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver) in order to impress her boss". I bet I'm not the only one who can't understand this sentence. Can somebody clarify? Specifically:

1. Christine is trying to impress her own boss, right? Not Mrs. Ganush's?
2. Was it refusing to extend the loan that Christine thought would impress her boss? Or extending the loan?

I'd like to rewrite the sentence to read something like:

The film circulates around Los Angeles loan officer Christine Brown (Alison Lohman), who tries to impress her boss by refusing to extend a loan to Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver).

or is it:

The film circulates around Los Angeles loan officer Christine Brown (Alison Lohman), who refuses to extend a loan that Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver) seeks in order to impress her boss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.2.5 (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Heard good things about this, so popped over here to see what the critics were saying. The section seems a bit unbalanced, though: Since the reviews were overwhelmingly positive, I think it would be better to cover the few negative ones much more quickly, since, at the moment, the majority positive reviews are given equal space to the small minority negative ones. I'm going to try trimming the paragraph, see what you think. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, I added those reviews initially as per WP:NPOV. The positive reviews are more common as stated by the rotten tomatoes links, but I added several negative ones to show that there was no real consensus why some critics didn't like it. If you have a better way of showing it, go for it. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried cutting much of the framing language and some of their minor points. I think listing them quickly gives them a lot less weight. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent article!

Great work, Wikipedians! We can make this stuff work! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 10:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation?

I'm not sure the Interpretation section is appropriate. It's unsourced and seems out of place when the article previously stated that both Raimis were trying to write a morality play. While an interesting idea, trying to shoehorn the entire story into a Bulimia induced hallucination doesn't seem to work. At the very least, there should be an outside source referenced, otherwise it's just the editor's personal theory. 67.233.156.177 (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section. It was added by User:Bulge Johnson earlier today. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 10:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be added back in. Their is a source provided and it is a legitimate theory, even if I don't like it.69.29.72.98 (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources so far have been from people saying that people form IMDB have thought of this. This sounds kind of against WP:RS/IMDB. The other source was from a user from cracked.com, not a writer or a reviewer or anything. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comedy-horror

Google search drag me to hell comedy horror

I edited this article saying that Drag me to Hell is a Comedy-Horror and my edit was reversed as original research which is nonsense since there are numerous hits suggesting precisely what I said; further the reverse indicated that Raimi is known as horror, and these hits indicate this is correct as is Raimi being Comedy-horror —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugene-elgato (talk • contribs) 21:30, February 13, 2010

Just because some people received it as part comedy doesn't mean that it is. This is Raimi's style, he sometimes incorporates humor or brutally violent humor into his films. This doesn't mean that it falls into the comedy genre. I can only think of some comical scenes that were more terrifying then they were funny.

• After the nose bleed, Mr. Jacks says "did I get any in my mouth?"
• Anvil falling on Sylvia's head
• Sylvia face slamming into the dashboard and afterwards reinserts her dentures and locks them in place
• Some of Clayton's lines
• Shaun falling back laughing then jumping up
• The goat calling Christine a whore
• Milos dancing

Like I said though, these scenes incorporate more horror than they do comedy. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 22:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your willingness to discuss it. What criteria are there if any for it to be listed as comedy-horror; you said it's more horror than comedy so presumably if the two were balanced? Is it not highly subjective; personally I found much funny about it when I saw it way back in May. I found the fortuneteller's patter almost replete with humor.Eugene-elgato (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The only way I can see this to be classified as comedy horror is if one of the key people (e.i. one of the Raimis) said so. Feel free to add a well sourced paragraph about this to the reception section though. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 22:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks very much. Originally I was going to break down some of those google hits and reference them on here and apparently one or two of the websites are on wikipedia's blacklist and I'd need to request to add them, but I shall see first if any other sources are available.Eugene-elgato (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

source about Raimi talking about combining humor and horror in the film. Sounds like comedy horror to me. I've added this cat. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a dead link. There are hundreds of films which aren't comedies, but which have a significant amount of humour. For example, Die Hard includes some very funny lines, but no-one describes it as an action comedy film. Jim Michael (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Connections to Evil Dead

I think there's some strong evidence to suggest that Drag Me To Hell exists in the Evil Dead universe.

References

Drag me to hell movie

Drag me to hell kitne bhasha mai dubbed hua hai 2405:204:101D:98E1:225F:F78C:1774:95A7 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Fgteev 2603:9000:CB0A:A411:46E:12E:9FCC:57BF (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)