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

> But for one thing, if this gypsy is so powerful...why was she in debt?

Probably, she was not so powerful.

> She can literally snatch someone to HELL, but she can't pay her mortgage?!

Probably, she cannot do either of these things.

Christine is dragged to hell by an evil demon who sometimes assumes the guise of Christine's victim. Christine, through her own escalating wickedness and stubbornness, puts herself deeper and deeper in the demon's power.

> I don't understand the argument Christine 'deserved' to go to hell
> for refusing a loan at all.

Well, its not like she got dragged to hell right away. She did a bunch of other nasty stuff before she got dragged to hell. Like running off and trying to leave her boyfriend with the "cursed" button (her final act).

> People claim the old gypsy died out of sorrow for loosing her home

The timing does seem significant. But if she was really on the verge of death anyway, then it only underscores the pointlessness of Christine's cruelty to a sick woman.

> but Christine was just doing her job [...]

But she wasn't! Her job involves granting extensions; she clearly believed, in this case, that granting an extension was the right thing to do; and her boss gave her permission to grant the extension. Clearly, if she was JUST doing her job, she would have granted the extension.

> and although some say it wasn't the charitable thing to do it was the
> best thing for the business Christine worked for

This is, of course, also true of a thug who mugs you in an alley. But Christine did not do it for the bank (which would have not lost anything from the extension - the loan is secure). She did it for Christine. She did it to prove that Christine could be "tough" and cruel, because she thought that would get her a promotion; which would get her a rich husband. It was cruelty for the sake of cruelty for the sake of personal greed.

> and she simply did as she thought best,

Not at all. Maybe she did what YOU thought best; but she did what SHE believed to be wrong. And then she lies about it. The script makes that 100% clear.

> nobody owed Mrs. Ganush a thing.

You go further than other Christine defenders here. Few would claim that sick old widows should be thrown in the gutter and left to die because no-one wants to help them. What others have tried to say, is that Mrs. Ganush is indeed owed charity, but Christine is not the person to do it. Rather, it should be the taxpayers, or the grand-daughter, or the guests at her funeral - anyone but Christine.

> but I can never understand why anyone would sympathise with an old hag
> bitch who attacks people simply for not giving her free money.

Okay. But this cannot justify Christine's reactions. Since Christine did not know how Ganush would react, Ganush's retaliation (however unjustified) cannot possibly excuse Christine's original cruelty.

As for "free money": Ganush was not asking for free money. She was asking for an extension of time on the repayment of a loan. Interest would still be charged (nothing was said about waiving it), and the entire outstanding amount was secured by the equity in her home (which was plenty, as the script establishes).

But the creature in the parking garage was probably not Ganush, but the demon. Ganush was likely already dead at that point.

Christine demonstrated hubris instead of humanity in several instances throughout the film. It wasn't like she simply refused to extend the woman's loan, it was the way she chose to go about it, with arrogance and tardiness. Rather than consider the consequences, even for a moment, Christine chose to 'impress' her boss, because that's how she perceived the situation. In truth, her boss had no expectations whatsoever of the decision he empowered her with.

It wasn't so much Christine's decision itself that brought the curse on and kept it there, but her frequent hubris and complete disregard for her shallow decision. She had the chance to 'repent' in the car on day 1, hell, she even had the chance to reconsider her decision when the woman begged her. Instead, she took it personally, tried to play equal when she was out of her league, when all she had to do was show some respect and remorse from day 1. It's a bit like the Sean Penn character in U-Turn, you got this impending sense of doom for the hubris shown by blind-sided lead character, although i would argue that U-Turn did it better.

I agree, it didn't seem enough for Christine to ultimately pay with her life, but it highlighted that her actions and conduct were chosen by her, and were not some haphazard consequence of life.

Interesting film, entertaining!

First of all, why should anyone be sent to eternal damnation because they chose not to give something to someone else? Who does the old gypsy think she is that she's entitled to whatever another has that she wants?


Second, I don't think she wanted a loan but this was about the gypsy NOT paying a debt she literally signed documents PROMISING she would pay back. How evil of Christine to want the money back that the gypsy already promised she would return!

christine not being a bad person made the movie IMO.

she was under pressure from everywhere and ended up saying no to the wrong person and paid with her soul.

her boyfriends parents didnt like her, she had to battle an obnoxious co worker for a promotion at work (seemed like she was in 2nd place til the end of the movie), and it seemed like she had offscreen family problems, she probably also felt inferior to her boyfriend who was from a rich upbringing.

the raimi brothers wanted to make a tale of morality more than a horror movie and they succeeded.