MovieChat Forums > Drag Me to Hell (2009) Discussion > Christine wasn't THAT bad of a person......

Christine wasn't THAT bad of a person.....


One thing that angers me about the movie!

There are people on here saying that Christine deserved everything she got. Err, sorry what? She denied a woman of a LOAN... I really don't think she deserved to burn in hell for ETERNITY for this. I'm pretty sure everyone of us have done something just as bad OR worse than this in our lives! Do we deserve to go to hell too?

And also, by saying she deserved to be sent there, is like saying she is as awful as murderers and rapists, who obviously DO deserve it! And yet, just by doing her job (regardless of why she denied the woman - even if it was for a selfish purpose, which I'm pretty sure a few people have done in the past) she is sent to hell, to burn for eternity! Grrr...

Rant over, thank you :)

reply

We've all done something as evil or more evil than chosing to be selfish instead of charitable like Christine. That's the point of the movie. She did something we all do, but to the wrong person, and she paid dearly for it.

---
Obscure movie quote

reply

I guess you're right :)

But it annoys me when people on these boards say that Christine DID deserve what she got, when actually she just did something we all do.

Damn that old gypsy woman! ;)

reply

Well, in the end, she did deserve hell. She chose greed over charity, lies over truth, performed black magic rites including killing a cat to save herself, almost damned a sick old man to eternal hell to save herself, welcomed the dead into her soul, desecrated a grave, and almost sent her boyfriend to hell instead of her. She never once tried to do something good, charitable, or sacrificed anything important to her in an ethical way to atone or repent for her original sin.

So yeah, by the end, I think she had pretty much damned herself.

---
Obscure movie quote

reply

Oh give me a break.


-- I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been

reply

what original sin? telling an old lady that she couldn't get a 3rd extension? if she was dabbling in black magic, she could have found some way of getting the money she needed. oh, and what about her so called friends and family that showed up for her wake? they couldn't pool some money together for her? that's just sorry.

reply

It's not charity when it's other people's money you're playing with. If a bank keeps making bad loans, it's the customers who suffer. (Your other points may hold--the movie started out so dull that I never finished it.)

reply

yeah yeah yeah, bad things. but if any of us adds up the bad/selfish things we've done, we would equally merit Hell by those standards. But that's ridiculous. We don't feel like we deserve Hell.
In the movie, the question of did she or did she not deserve Hell is not important. The fact is that Hell is coming for her whether she likes it or not. In the words of Will Munny: "Deserve's got nuthin' to do with it."

reply

[deleted]

wow i never looked at it in that angle before

reply

She chose greed over charity

not really, she did her job
lies over truth

is that really such a sin to go to HELL over, to tell one white lie?
performed black magic rites

so?
including killing a cat to save herself

everyone in the world would kill a cat to prevent themselves from spending eternity in hell, dont even try and say you wouldn't
almost damned a sick old man to eternal hell to save herself

she didnt almost, theres a world between thinking about something and actually doing it
welcomed the dead into her soul

so?
desecrated a grave

of a person who sent her to hell for refusing her a bank loan
almost sent her boyfriend to hell instead of her.

when?
She never once tried to do something good, charitable, or sacrificed anything important to her in an ethical way to atone or repent for her original sin.

well she did admit to her lie, and her "original sin" was really just to doing her job. yes she did lie saying it was her manager "making her" but why invite abuse on herself? even if she had given an extension it was clear she wasnt going to be able to pay it off so the bank would have taken the house eventually anyway.

if she deserved to go to hell for trying to avoid a conflict with the old woman then everyone in the world would go to hell (if such a thing existed).

reply

And yet people have no problem with the Exorcist, where the demon takes over a little girl's body because she *beep* around with a Ouija board. The Exorcist is by far a much more ridicuolous premise.

What did people want - a love note from the demon to Christine asking her to check yes if she is evil?

Of course demons are going to lie and cheat for souls. If they didn't then it would be a pretty boring story.

reply

well the point of a movie is to entertain in someway. whether it be intellectualy stimulating, scary, funny, an engrossing story, a tear jerker. the point is to be enjoyable in some way. a movie like chinatown might piss you off but it will have you talking about it for weeks, it stimulates conversation and is an immensly enjoyable ride. but this movie pisses me off with no pay off. i just saw the main character (very predictably nce you see the envelope get mixed in with the other papers) get dragged to hell for no reason. now if it was shock value that would be fine, but because they showed the envelope get tossed in with the papers anyone who has ever seen a movie knows that she picked up the wrong envelope, otherwise why show it? therefore there is no shock, its just annoying. you can see it coming, then it happens, and its unpleasant. basically there is no pay off to this movie, you see a couple of cool special effects, one or two slighty creepy scenes, then the only character they got me invested in goes to hell somewhat unfairly. the point is not that the demons are too evil its that there is no payoff to watching the movie at all. you may as well just watch the trailer to see the special effects, cos thats all thats enjoyable.

reply

LOL I just got the reference when Rham was asking Christine (when they met first time and he was reading her hand and noticed that she had a demon inside) whether she played with Ouija board :)

I watched the movie yesterday and decided to browse forums today.

reply

everyone in the world would kill a cat to prevent themselves from spending eternity in hell, dont even try and say you wouldn't


Only sick and coward do that. I am a man, I am brave. I have the guts. I am no coward or sick that i'll trouble any innocent life for myself.

Also there is no such place hell. and even if there is, i don't mind to go there. But i won't kill.
----------
lost faith in DC

reply

What's your standard for kill? You wouldn't squash a spider? That's killing. Go fishing? Because that kills the fish. Is it only cute animals you wouldn't kill?
I can see not killing another person (I wouldn't), but killing a kitten? I have two kids and I'm not leaving them as orphans because I thought a cat's life was more valuable than mine.


That hexagon-face bitch, she's so passive-aggressive.
-SpencerFan

reply

Oh my god, I like your reply, it would be really great to put the meaning behind your sentences onto a script of debate.

reply

I don't even know why responders are giving the post credence. I laughed at his/her remarks.

Maybe it's lost on some people, but this "horror film" was a comedy.

reply

All that happened after she was cursed. The curse was put on her when all she did was refuse a loan, she didn't deserve hell for that. After the curse was placed things got a bit bad on her part but she did it out of necessity. I also don't think she meant to send her boyfriend to hell, it was just a mistake due to the coin and button being place in similer envelopes and she technically didn't give him the button

reply

[deleted]

when actually she just did something we all do.


We all evict people!?Are you nuts?

reply

Are you saying that if you are a landlord and your tenants don't pay rent, you won't evict?

reply

Hmm, good point actually! But at the time that the old lady cursed her, all she had done was deny her of her loan. And I'm pretty sure some people would do anything to save themselves from enternally burning in hell!

So I sympathise with Christine, but I do agree, a lot of her actions were selfish.

IMO it was all that crazy b*tch gypsy woman's fault!! And she was going to die the next day anyway! ;)

reply


I don't think she was that bad of a person either. But I'm not sure what the director wants us to think. Is it meant to be ironic when Justin Long says 'you're such a good person' & then moments later she is dragged to hell? This movie asks some seriously poignant questions, could be used in a classroom if people could get past the whole horror movie thing.
i hope you choke on your bacardi & coke!

reply


But consider that she probably died the next day because she could not stand the thought of being evicted and homeless. If Christine had not denied the loan she probably would have lived. Therefore Christine inadvertently contributed to the gypsies death - something much more serious then just a loan denial.


Custom Tees and Skate Decks at http://insomniakapparel.com/

reply

Is it meant to be ironic when Justin Long says 'you're such a good person' & then moments later she is dragged to hell?


Yes, I think it is, without getting into some Alanisian debate about irony. I think think what is exactly said piles on the irony more. She confesses that she could have extended the loan and she made the wrong decision. His reply is:

'You have such a good heart. You're so beautiful right now.'


It's like he hasn't heard a word she's said. She's sweet and good natured, and she's so beatiful. Never mind you allowed an old lady to be evicted just because you wanted a promotion.

People keep complaining that it is so unfair to Christine. What she did wasn't that wrong and even if it wasn't she certainly doesn't deserve to burn in hell for eternity. Well of course not. In fact I find it morally and philosophically repugnant that people think anyone at all would literally deserve such punishment. But that's not the point.

Many of us might wish the worst on our enemies, especially in anger or when we feel totally humiliated. We might wish they'd go to hell. Unfortunately for Christine, Ganush has this power literally.

Christine represents all many people hate about society and its greed and inclination to step on people to climb the ladder, all done with a sweet smile on the face.

reply

> But consider that she probably died the next day because she could not stand
> the thought of being evicted and homeless.

The connection is stronger than that. She died the SAME day. Her obituary give the date of her death, and it is a Wednesday.

reply

The gypsy was an idiot. If she had the power to send people to hell, that there's a marketable skill and worth a lot of money to some people- especially politicians, corporate vice presidents and of course loan officers. Gypsy chick could have gotten Christine to pay her mortgage for her had she offered to send Christine's competition to hell in return for payment- or at least a loan extention.

Dumbass gypsies.

I'm holding everyone to a higher standard- a standard much higher than my own

reply

[deleted]

LOL

reply

'But consider that she probably died the next day because she could not stand the thought of being evicted and homeless. If Christine had not denied the loan she probably would have lived. Therefore Christine inadvertently contributed to the gypsies death - something much more serious then just a loan denial.'

That still isn't a good reason to back up to why she deserved hell. She was not aware that the woman was going to die the next day and she didn't deny the loan to make the woman die. If she knew, then yeah, it would be somewhat justified but she didn't so it's still a loan denial which is a silly reason to send someone to hell.

reply

It wasn't just a loan, it was a third extension on a loan. With multiple notices/warnings/bills sent. And Mrs. Ganush didn't get to the bank until the day the men were already there packing her crap up. Frankly, it was rather entitled on her part to think she DESERVED a third extension on account of her age, and that she's too good to ask family for help or live in a facility. What exactly makes her so special that she shouldn't have to face the same thing millions of senior citizens face daily? Sad that it took to her age to have to get this life lesson/boot up her ass, but the cliche phrase "your lack of preparation does not constitute an emergency on my part" more than applies.

When you're 17 a cow can seem dangerous and forbidden...am I alone here?

reply

I think people are missing the point. In the immortal words of Clint Eastwood, "Deserves got nothing to do with it."

reply

I think people are missing the point. In the immortal words of Clint Eastwood, "Deserves got nothing to do with it."

reply

I'm sorry but this is one thing that angers me about the movie!

You're really saying two different things here -- that the movie angered you, and that the posters here anger you.

I think you should be angry at the posters, but not at the movie.

Christine is not a bad person, she's just a fallible one. Like th rest of us. She doesn't "deserve" what she gets, but she gets it! She's cursed! The story is all about her fate at the hands of the demon, her curse incarnate.

Can any one of us really say that everyone has only ever got what they deserved?

The story is told in such an over the top fashion to make it thrilling and fun. Of course Christine has to be made believable enough to make it worth caring about her.

But it's just a movie, it's just for fun. It was just Alison Lohman pretending to be Christine, Alison is alive and well, a beautiful, talented and successful actress. Relax, it's just for fun!


reply

[deleted]

In the context of the story is a statement that I like more than the film itself, and to see it you have to really understand the events that are unfolding in the plot. If you thought Christine was innocent, think again. What the movie suggests is that most of us probably see ourselves doing things that really aren't too bad, but the truth is that we're often being selfish because we don't look for the bigger picture to see how other people might be affected by our choices. The more dishonesty we engage in, the more accepting we are of evil and sin; we welcome it and receive it into our lives. The train barrowing down on Christine in the end and where she falls is symbolic of her falling prey to her own selfishness and winding up on a track bound for hell. Christine was so focused on her life with Clay and the things that she wanted that she didn't see the one way ticket she bought in exchange for selling pieces of her soul. When Christine denies Ganush the extension, she sacrifices her compassion. When Christine kills her cat, she sacrifices the love and the loyalty that was in her heart. Just before she prepares to board the train with Clay, pay attention to how she just has to have that coat in the window and listen to her excuse when she asks the sales clerk to bend the rules. Drag Me to Hell is about us taking a closer look at the possible consequences of our actions and the people affected by them.

reply

When it comes to not giving the third extension, Christine did the only thing she should have. She's working for a bank, not a charitable institution. There are no free rides in life.

Furthermore, the old hag had alternatives. She could live with her daughter or in an oldfolks' home. The old hag thought this was beneath her.
Well, tough! That's not Christine's problem, or the bank's.

Not only should she not have had a third extension. She should not have had a second. You can't honor a deal, don't make the deal.

Now, the kitty-slaughtering thing is a different thing.

But then again, this is a "comedy" right, so who cares when the "hero" slaughters a kitten to save her own rear end.

reply

When it comes to not giving the third extension, Christine did the only thing she should have. She's working for a bank, not a charitable institution. There are no free rides in life.

Furthermore, the old hag had alternatives. She could live with her daughter or in an oldfolks' home. The old hag thought this was beneath her.
Well, tough! That's not Christine's problem, or the bank's.

Not only should she not have had a third extension. She should not have had a second. You can't honor a deal, don't make the deal.

Now, the kitty-slaughtering thing is a different thing.

But then again, this is a "comedy" right, so who cares when the "hero" slaughters a kitten to save her own rear end.

Indeed Ganush felt entitled, but Christine's problem is that she allowed the chance of a promotion to alter her character from someone who would normally act with compassion to a person who started to act with ulterior motives. Life doesn't always allow us the foresight to know when we're being tested, and unfortunately Christine was more in tune to the test imposed on her by her boss. Ganush obviously took advantage of someone's compassion twice before, but we all face different tests at different times.

reply

While you may say Christine's 'character' was not up to the task of making brutal decisions and she allowed herself to change out of ambition, it doesn't change the fact that she did was - in her job - she was supposed to do.

If it had not been Christine it would have been someone else. Without banks, no loans. It is like moving into a house and expecting someone not to demand rent.
But what if people would simply not be BUILDING houses to sell or rent at all? People would be living in the streets instead. People such as the old hag are always looking for others to provide the means to live properly (such as housing or food), and then they expect it to be free on top of it.

So looking at it from the old hag's perspective. As long as people would not be giving her free money, the ones refusing would be cursed, and some would consider that curse "their just rewards" which is absolutely ridiculous.

People are never looking at the big picture. They think banks are evil for demanding to be repaid? They should imagine nothing being there to provide them with loans AT ALL. Then lets see how evil banks are.

reply

Christine did NOT deserve to go to hell, especially in the manner she was sent. It was either give Miss Ganush a loan that she didn't badly need (like Christine even mentions during that scene, Ganush could have stayed with her granddaughter or turned to assisted living). Why should it suddenly be Christine's responsibility to save Miss Ganush's house? She wanted a well deserved promotion and she knew assisting Miss Ganush would be going against her work policy as well as compromising her chances at the position. Miss Ganush was the bad person, cursing people where she didn't have the right to. Why should anybody deserve to have their soul taken at an early age and endure an eternity of torment? One of the many things that makes this movie so disappointing when it had the potential to be really great.

reply

The fact that Christine did not deserve to go to hell for doing her job really annoyed me as well. Ganush is the evil one as she would actually curse someone to go to hell. I mean, telling someone to 'go to hell' is one thing but when you possess the ability to actually curse someone to actually go to hell? I mean, who is mean enough to actually send someone to hell? When Christine was faced with the decision that she could save herself by passing on the curse by giving away the button, she had a hard time passing it on even to Stu, her competitor who sells her out constantly. So really, Ganush is the evil one. She would send someone to hell simply because she was denied a third extension. Sure she was humiliated, ashamed, etc, but Sending someone to hell for that is selfish, evil and uncalled for. How would this affect the family and friends of the person being dragged to hell? Sending someone to hell is much, much worse than murder. Ganush is worse than a murderer!

I know it's just a movie but this really annoyed me.

reply

> Christine did not deserve to go to hell for doing her job

She wasn't "doing her job"; she was angling for a promotion. She did something she knew to be wicked, in order to get ahead. It's called "selling your soul to the devil". If she had just been doing her job, Ganush would have gotten her extension.

> I mean, who is mean enough to actually send someone to hell?

Christine is:
First she tries to offer her kitty to the Lamia.
Then (at the seance) she tries to offer her boss to the Lamia.
Then she tries to offer Mrs. Ganush to the Lamia.
Finally, by fleeing from Clay when he tries to return the button, she tries to offer Clay to the Lamia.

But poor old Mrs. Ganush is probably completely innocent:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1127180/board/thread/150157381

reply

"She wasn't "doing her job"


Yes she was, watch the movie again.


"he was angling for a promotion."

Which was an opportunity. Why would this grant her a promotion? Why would anyone at any job woulde be up for a promotion, genius? Because they're doing their job well. She was also an opportunist and succumbed to greed, but that is far from selling your soul to the devil.

Go preach your religion somewhere else.



"he did something she knew to be wicked, in order to get ahead."



Not wicked, just careless.



"it's called "selling your soul to the devil"."


No, it's not


"If she had just been doing her job, Ganush would have gotten her extension."


No, if she had chosen to be a better person at that time, Ganush would have gotten her extension.



reply

> Go preach your religion somewhere else.

I was not talking to you.

reply

So, I was.

reply

> So, I was.

So you were what?

reply

You were not talking to me, correct?

So I said, So what, I was. As in, I was talking to YOU.

reply

> You were not talking to me, correct?

That is correct.

> So I said, So what, I was. As in, I was talking to YOU.

Yes, you certainly were.

reply

Which makes your 'I wasn't talking to you' lime obsolete and redundant.

Why don't you start answering the challenges instead of providing trivial logic and circular arguments?

reply

> Why don't you start answering the challenges

Why don't you stop begging for attention.

reply

"Why don't you stop begging for attention."

That appears to be extremely hypocritical of you, since you keep quite until the first second someone states that they agree with me and that I am correct.

Not only that you're begging for a attention, you're a sore loser on top of that.

reply

> since you keep quite until the first second someone states that they agree
> with me and that I am correct.

Shotor:
(1) I don't have to talk to you.
(2) I don't have to not talk to you.
(3) I don't have to not talk to others.
(4) I don't have to not talk to people who agree with you.
(5) I don't have to not mention you to other people.
(6) I don't have to go away.
(7) I don't have to keep quiet.

reply

"(1) I don't have to talk to you."


1. But you sure do enjoy discussing on my regards, and especially rebutting posters who seem to agree with me.



"2) I don't have to not talk to you."


2. Circular reasoning as you always somehow manage to re-enter the discussion, offer your inane logic and then bail out when you can't back yourself. Whether you talk to me or not, this is what you do, so your line up there makes no sense.



"(3) I don't have to not talk to others."


Talk away, and I never said otherwise.



"(4) I don't have to not talk to people who agree with you."



4. Talking to them about me, but not to me.... interesting arguing methods.




"(5) I don't have to not mention you to other people."



So what's the point of your 'I wasn't talking to you' line of defense? I equate you talking about me with others in a public forum pretty much as you talking to me directly, and I doubt that you didn't realize this. So you did expect a reply me, so I suggest stop whining about it.



"(6) I don't have to go away."


Whenever you make an inane and illogical post, especially one that argues against my points, and then can't back it up with other then with lame comments like 'insult noted' and then makes some other comment to the affect of the discussion going to a point of no return, I sure as hell can tell you either back up your statements or shut it and GO AWAY.



"(7) I don't have to keep quiet. "


You're going to be when it comes to discussing me with other posters if you don't want to me to show up and rip you an new one.

I've already established that your entire philosophy is anecdotal at best, best for you to do is cut your losses and leave.

Remember this, I said nothing until you mentioned my name.

reply

> So what's the point of your 'I wasn't talking to you' line of defense?

What was the point of your "Go preach your religion somewhere else" line of attack?

reply

I asked you first.

You answer my question FIRST since it came up in a different thread Prior to the 'Preach' line.

reply

[deleted]

Now that's, Comedy!

reply

> I asked you first.

So? I owe you nothing.

reply

No you don't, but since you asked me as-well, then do the honorable thing, step up to your challenge first before you pose one to others.

Otherwise, shut it.

reply

> since you asked me as-well

It was a rhetorical question. No answer was desired or expected.

reply

Then why even claim that you owe me nothing if it was rhetorical?

See mine wasn't.

reply

> Then why even claim that you owe me nothing

Because I owe you nothing.

reply

Then why post at all since you know a reaction is going to be generated, yet claim that no reaction was expected; see how retarded you sound?


Besides, I know that you owe me nothing. And I know that you know that I know.
In fact, I know that you know, that I know that we both know that you didn't need to say that.

But as usual you're king of red herrings... so.,

reply

> you owe me nothing.

Agreed.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

A lot of you seem to be forgetting that she says she could have extended the loan. Her boss even says: "Okay, it's your call." Christine had the chance to do the right thing and chose to do what would benefit her instead of someone less fortunate. We don't know why Mrs. Ganush is in so much financial trouble, although it's reasonable to assume it's because she is old and possibly has some medical problems, which include medical bills. She also is from another country, which means she might not fully understand the American banking and loan system.
If Christine was such a good person, she would have offered that extension despite the fact that it might cost her a promotion.

Her encounter with Ganush is a clash of culture as well as age and economic status. We see that Christine lives comfortably. It's not as if she's having huge financial struggles. The promotion isn't a life or death kind of thing, it's just nice to think about having more money.

One of the reasons I like this film so much is it shows how one poor decision can completely alter your life. It makes you think whether it is more important to do what is morally right or to get ahead in life.

reply

"A lot of you seem to be forgetting that she says she could have extended the loan. Her boss even says: "Okay, it's your call." Christine had the chance to do the right thing and chose to do what would benefit her instead of someone less fortunate."


It's not that this is not understood, but the picture is that Mr. Jacks knows exactly what would be the standard company policy in that regard. So yes, it would cost her that promotion. He was testing her and she knew it.




"We don't know why Mrs. Ganush is in so much financial trouble, although it's reasonable to assume it's because she is old and possibly has some medical problems, which include medical bills."


That's the thing, the movie doesn't ask of the viewers to care, it rather tells a tale of morality. As far as we're concerned Ganush could've been in that financial trouble due to real misfortune, or simply due to laziness and neglect to adhere to the contract. Seeing how this would be her 3rd extension, and that there are repossessing people at her house, she had ample notice and time to address this. Clearly she's shown to have a lot of people and friends who know her, not to mention, her grand-daughter.




"She also is from another country, which means she might not fully understand the American banking and loan system."


I don't know about that one. She has a thick accent, but she clearly states that she has been making those payments for 30 years. Hence, 30 years in the country. If that is not enough time to learn the language and the bank loan systems, then I really can't see who else is to be blamed for this.



"If Christine was such a good person, she would have offered that extension despite the fact that it might cost her a promotion."


I don't think anyone is arguing that Christine IS a GOOD person in the movie, rather someone who is trying to be one, and fails at it in this particular aspect. Further, one selfish act resulted by greed should not condemn a person as evil or not good, it just means that person is fallible as any other human being. Much like many, Christine is vain and she suffers from self esteem issues. Whether she fully realized this or not, that aspect comes to her first, being a good person second.


"Her encounter with Ganush is a clash of culture as well as age and economic status. We see that Christine lives comfortably. It's not as if she's having huge financial struggles. The promotion isn't a life or death kind of thing, it's just nice to think about having more money."


I don't think it's about a clash of cultures. Raimi simply chose the East European culture for Ganush for a Gypsy and black magic narrative, and of course, Lamia. The problem you suggest is just that, Christine can't see past that. Yes, her life and financial status appears solid and comfy, but as we clearly see, it's simply isn't enough for her, and she still struggles with numerous things.



"One of the reasons I like this film so much is it shows how one poor decision can completely alter your life. It makes you think whether it is more important to do what is morally right or to get ahead in life."


Pretty much, degradation of a human being and its character.

reply

I don't believe that Christine deserved her punishment, and I feel bad for her. Even so, I still think that this was an amazing movie. I think you may be in the wrong mindset to properly enjoy this film. I'll explain.

I like to look at this movie as if it has an alternate title.
"Evil Dead 4: Drag Me to Hell"

If you look at this as if it is another installment in the Evil Dead series, Christine's fate makes more sense. In all three movies, Ash gets a nasty surprise at the very last second (of course I am counting the Director's Cut Army of Darkness, not the theatrical release). Ash doesn't deserve this fate; it is done purely to torment him.

If you think that Christine was a bad person who acted on greed and selfishness, then that's fine. If you think that Christine was a good person who angered the wrong witch, that's fine too. It doesn't matter how good or bad she is; it doesn't matter if she deserves her fate. The point is that this is an Evil Dead movie, and Sam Raimi's characters are in for a world of torment.

reply

Perhaps it is wise to look at it that way..

At least it would save us tons of time on muddling through hoards of posts trying to attribute this movie some poetic religious philosophical diatribe.


This movie should never be taken seriously. It's a nice touch to see fresh, round, 3 dimensional and fully fleshed out characters that you actually can care about in a horror movie/comedy... But still, it should not be taken seriously at all. It mocks itself in a way.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]


Nobody deserves to go to hell... sure murderers are bad, but they don't deserve to be tortured FOREVER



I think Cro Cop is a pretty cool guy, eh sends head into orbit and doesn't afraid of anything

reply

Finally a voice of reason in this thread.

reply

you crazy idiots or psycopaths perhaps. of course that girl didn't deserve to go to hell for eternity for denying her an extension on the loan.

jesus christ, are these people serious?

only certain people would even qualify as for deserving such total and complete punishment like that and that would only be the most vile type of predator who enjoys hurting innocents like child rapists and abusers and murderers who use torture along with it and usually not even all murderers. contrary to what most usually think, abusers are much worse and sadistic as they like to hurt the living. that's why they usually have the most devious and sadistic personalities, murderers not necessarily unless they are serial killers and usually do that coupled with rape or other forms of torture. but even with this , it would have to be something that's a pattern and consistent where they want to do consistent harm to others for pleasure. i've only met very few people who could be classified as that evil. again, they are arrogant abusers who get their jollies off that way.

but this girl for that? no way. the point of the film is that in life there are no guarantees and that if you run into the wrong person or people you can end up really harmed, even if that harm isn't totally deserved or deserved at all. also, it shows that the gypsey woman is also evil herself or more evil for abusing power this way. it's kind of a metaphor for how *beep* life can be and how people can do wrong to others or are less charitable or understanding like christine and also how people can abuse their power. both christine and the gypsey abused their power in some way to hurt someone else. but definitely the gypsey was more wrong in this case. no way that girl deserved to go to hell for eternity for just that.

reply

Exactly A.G.

It's very simple. You have two women here: One who is a person who is trying to be a decent human, but succumbs to greed. In the aftermath, does some vile things so try and save herself from being dragged to hell.

The other one, curses the first one to hell because she wronged her.


Who deserves to go to hell, someone who made a mistake, or someone who damns people to hell?

It's not that hard.

reply

I think when you do bad things, or do unkind things to people(I'm sure she could have tried to work things out with the old lady)you get those bad things back, Christine just got more back than she bargained for. Just because you have a job where you might do unpleasant things does not mean you have to be nasty which is what she purposely did to get the promotion. she got what was coming to her.

reply

I think that to say 'she got what was coming to her' is very juvenile on your part. It shows that you really didn't quite grasp the essence of the movie properly.

To claim that Christine is completely innocent would also be of that magnitude, but it does not excuse the latter. The movie makes it very clear that there really is no villain here. Rather it's a tale of some unfortunate events, nothing less and nothing more. If you'd say that Christine brought the situation on herself, you may be right. However if you'd say that she deserved to be dragged to hell prematurely because of some lapse in judgement and momentary greed, then it would be harshly unjustified. Humans are greedy in nature, we all know that, but that does not mean we should all be dragged to hell.

reply