Sam Raimi's "Drag Me To Hell"

[Astalder]

Agreed, I've about had it with the R-only movement in general. If you force my hand and told I had to choose one, because studios were dropping the other, I would choose the PG-13 movement over the R movement. R is rarely necessary, and it is often abused in such a way that it's about over compensating for something instead of making a good movie (Saw, Hostel, etc). There are rare exceptions (i.e. war films).

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Uncle Leo

What what what! You MUST live in a podunk town. Theaters now have digital projectors and sound. Sorry you do not have one.

I just looked up the Theatre Info for the local cineplex, it states it offers 'Digital Projection (select titles)'.

They still look like crap to me....

[GGX]

Originally Posted by Astalder

Agreed, I've about had it with the R-only movement in general. If you force my hand and told I had to choose one, because studios were dropping the other, I would choose the PG-13 movement over the R movement. R is rarely necessary, and it is often abused in such a way that it's about over compensating for something instead of making a good movie (Saw, Hostel, etc). There are rare exceptions (i.e. war films).

I can't think of many good PG-13 horror movies in general.

[DutchBoy]

Originally Posted by GGX

I can't think of many good PG-13 horror movies in general.

This power-bombed any PG-13 horror movie I have ever seen before.

OP, "looney-toon"-esque? Have you never seen 'Evil Dead' or its sequels before?

[Jack Torrance]

For those complaining about the "PG-13" rating, it seems that a lot of you are forgetting that DMTH is inspired by a lot more of the old fashioned horror movies... NIGHT OF THE DEMON, HAUNTING etc. It does rely a lot on suspense and "terror" rather than outright gross FX, thereby it doesn't need an "R" rating as it's not the movie that Raimi wanted to make. If Raimi had wanted to push it to attain an "R" rating, with his clout, he could've done it as such and the studio (at the relatively low budget by their standards that the film cost to make) wouldn't really have batted an eyelid. But it wasn't neccessary (though some people will never be convinced of that). That said, I'm sure there's a few seconds of footage around that they'll add into the blu release to claim it as an "unrated" version - but I'd bet Raimi is plenty happy with this current version.

It's a "fun house" type of movie (as a lot of people and reviewers had pointed out). Those that want the "gore the merrier" Raimi probably won't be satisfied I guess, which is a shame as it's terrific fun and scary.

[Jack Torrance]

Originally Posted by Astalder

Agreed, I've about had it with the R-only movement in general. If you force my hand and told I had to choose one, because studios were dropping the other, I would choose the PG-13 movement over the R movement. R is rarely necessary, and it is often abused in such a way that it's about over compensating for something instead of making a good movie (Saw, Hostel, etc). There are rare exceptions (i.e. war films).

It does depend on the material. Not all horror movies need to be R rated. But someat the bare minimum need to be rated R (or unrated) to tell the story effectively (Romero's Dead series, 28 Days/Weeks Later, etc. etc.). For some to say right off the top of their heads that all PG-13 horror movies must be bad just because it is rated that way is a bit silly.

[WyldeMan45]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

I just looked up the Theatre Info for the local cineplex, it states it offers 'Digital Projection (select titles)'.

They still look like crap to me....

Some theaters just look like crap that's why I drive 2 towns over because I found a fantastic theaters setup that trumps all the rest with their Klipsch audio

[CYMBOL]

Going to check this out tonight with wife. We have a Warren Theater (google it), with 80 foot high screens, balconies with dinner and drink service, and THX sound.

Looking forward to seeing a fun horror movie with a crowd. Been a while - hope to get some good jumps (not the kinds where the music blasts at 10X the regular level to "scare" you), and hear some folks scream. I personally don't care for gore for the sake of gore, so I'm good for a scarey movie that hopefully has some phycological elements that get you spooked.

I'll report back tomorrow what I thought (going to a late showing).

[ulri4651]

Originally Posted by charlieray1

Amen.

I don't get this whole ratings debate. If the only measure of quality a horror film has is the amount of gore it contains, count me out.

Story and atmosphere beat mindless bloodletting any day of the week.

i agree, but we are talking about HORROR here so the rating system does have to count for something. I mean if this movie isn't too scary for a 13 year old then it probably isn't that scary. Right? It doesn't just come down to gore...

[ulri4651]

Originally Posted by Jack Torrance

It does rely a lot on suspense and "terror" rather than outright gross FX, thereby it doesn't need an "R" rating as it's not the movie that Raimi wanted to make. If Raimi had wanted to push it to attain an "R" rating, with his clout, he could've done it as such and the studio (at the relatively low budget by their standards that the film cost to make) wouldn't really have batted an eyelid. But it wasn't neccessary (though some people will never be convinced of that). That said, I'm sure there's a few seconds of footage around that they'll add into the blu release to claim it as an "unrated" version - but I'd bet Raimi is plenty happy with this current version.

you are making waaaay too many assumptions here...

[CYMBOL]

Originally Posted by ulri4651

i agree, but we are talking about HORROR here so the rating system does have to count for something. I mean if this movie isn't too scary for a 13 year old then it probably isn't that scary. Right? It doesn't just come down to gore...

I don't know - I thought The Ring was very suspenseful and it was PG-13. I rarely feel suspense in regular horror movies and I'm often bored just sitting around "waiting for the next kill".

I saw Drag Me to Hell last night.

The rating was fine - there was VERY little that would have needed to be intensified by more gore. There was actually only one scene that was NOT shown that helped it be more comedic than tragic - and I think Raimi was trying to keep the humor and horror close together.


My Review:

I thought it was very good - but this movie has a LOT to do with sound, so seeing this in a theater with a good sound system is highly recommended to get the full effect.

I personally, slightly jumped once and the movie got a FULL jump out of my one time. However, the audience around me was eating this stuff up! There were gasps, screams, laughing.

This is definitely a movie you go see with a crowd.

SLIGHT SPOILERS
I enjoyed the movie, however, for me, many of the "jumps" were "gotha" moments. One great thing about the movie is that is has a definite story and an ending - meaning, the story is complete with no "hand out of the grave" moments. A refreshing change from most horror movies.
END SLIGHT SPOILERS

People clapped at the end of the movie, and when we were walking out of the theater many people were immediately talking about their favorite parts of the movie (so far, the only movie I've seen this summer where people did this was Star Trek). People were laughing at each other for jumping at certain parts and were acting like they just came off of a good roller coaster. My wife even said, "I can't keep smiling, it was like being on a fun roller-coaster".

I wasn't as impressed as everyone else. Most of it seemed a bit predictable to me - but I seem to be in the minority - either way, I had a good time watching Raimi do his thing and just enjoyed the "story" (Most horror movies seem to forget they're supposed to actually have a story these days), and the sound was pretty crazy.

Anyone looking for a "fun" movie, or a movie to bring a friends or signifant other to to watch them jump - this is your movie. Also, this movie is ok for those who "hate gore".

Hope this was helpful without spoiling anything in the movie.

[Suntory_Times]

If its 10% as good as Evil Dead 2 i'll love it.

[broganreynik]

I don't quite get all the hype about it being as good as Evil Dead, but I will say it's personally the best horror movie I've seen that's come out since the original Saw. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement since I think all the horror movies I've seen since then, especially the Saw sequels, have been crap. I'd give it 4/5 stars.

[atomik kinder]

Originally Posted by ulri4651

i agree, but we are talking about HORROR here so the rating system does have to count for something. I mean if this movie isn't too scary for a 13 year old then it probably isn't that scary. Right? It doesn't just come down to gore...

I don't agree with you. I am not sure that being SCARY leads to an R rating. There are certain criteria that must be met for the film to attain that rating. People complaining that the movie isn't rated R therfore it can't be scary have not seen the movie.

Personally, I loved the movie.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by Uncle Leo

What what what! You MUST live in a podunk town. Theaters now have digital projectors and sound. Sorry you do not have one.

It's the same way at my local theaters. Only one of my three local theaters, which has 16 screens, has TWO digital projectors with digital sound and they are used almost exclusively for family fare. Star Trek playing in Digital was a rare exception. It is disappointing because Blu-ray is ALWAYS better than watching in the movie theater, other than the fact going to the movies is a unique experience.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by GenPion

It's the same way at my local theaters. Only one of my three local theaters, which has 16 screens, has TWO digital projectors with digital sound and they are used almost exclusively for family fare. Star Trek playing in Digital was a rare exception. It is disappointing because Blu-ray is ALWAYS better than watching in the movie theater, other than the fact going to the movies is a unique experience.

Hmm, I have a local theater that still usses film and it blows away the digital projectors (as it is done very well). However, digital projection is generally much better, but with a good well looked aftger unit and operators 35mm projectors dystroy digital projection.

[Lord_Stewie]

Originally Posted by Borris

Sam Raimi returns to the horror genre tomorrow with the PG-13 horror film "Drag Me To Hell."
I was at the DFW screening last night and

[Show spoiler]had relatively low expectations going into the film. After all, it's a PG-13 horror film. I found the basic plotline and dialog very basic, allowing for the often modest visual effects and the performance of the actors to carry the film. It worked, though. It felt like an episode of Fear Factor meets an M. Night Shyamalan film (but a good M. Night film) in that it is suspenseful, yet contains enough jump-scenes to engage the audience. Aside from a loony toon-esqe part with a goat, the only other sight gag that struck me as over-the-top involved some not-so-great CGI of eyeballs (also with a loony toon-esque anvil involved). One thing I will say, for Alison Lohman to allow so many sight gags involving various things in and near her mouth, this girl proves she'll do almost anything for her craft. The only thing I was disappointed with was the minutes leading up to the ending. The final scene I felt was predictable, but with a final ending that was still enjoyable. I don't see how making this an R-rated film would have added to the film. The overall product, shows how you can take a mediocre story and add some decent acting with a great director, editor, and sound effects with the result of a great suspense-horror film.
One suggestion if you plan to see this...make sure the theater you go to has a great audio system as this aspect really added to my enjoyment of the film. I'm sure it will sound even better on blu.

8.5/10

what would your answer be if I ask how do you compare it to Evil Dead? Would it be worth the bucks to see?

[dellca]

I loved the fact that Raimi keeps using the same yellow car since Evil Dead 1. I've seen it in Evil Dead 1,2,3, (Ash's car) Spider Man (uncle Ben's car), and DMTH (old lady's car).

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by dellca

I loved the fact that Raimi keeps using the same yellow car since Evil Dead 1. I've seen it in Evil Dead 1,2,3, (Ash's car) Spider Man (uncle Ben's car), and DMTH (old lady's car).

Thats making good use of ones budget. Is it his own car?

[CYMBOL]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Thats making good use of ones budget. Is it his own car?

It's in every movie he does. I told my wife about it before seeing the movie, she was excited when she saw it. Very funny to see the car again.