Christine spurts half a pint of blood from her nose at work, and everyone acts like she's being rude rather than calling 911 and getting her an ambulance. Her boss is only concerned with having gotten some of her blood in his mouth. Clearly, Christine has suffered a serious injury (like a brain tumor that just burst) and her life is in danger. Even if everyone at work is unfeeling and totally professional they should still care. If she dies, then the bank could most likely be sued by Christine's relatives.
There are theories that most of the horror of the movie is all in Christine's head, and that scene is part of the evidence.
So wait, if the person holding the button is the one that gets dragged down to hell, then why wasn't it Clay that got dragged down instead of Christine?
Up until the very end, that's exactly what I thought was gonna happen.
It's not the person holding the button that gets dragged to Hell, it's the button's owner. Hence the reason she had to give it to someone else as a gift, rather than just flushing it down the toilet.
Why doesn't Rham Jas just give Christine all three of her options at once? She would have had a lot more time to choose a course of action that way.
He did think the first choice would work and the last one was a Sadistic Choice.
She did ask him this directly, and he responds by saying that he didn't want to be complicit in sending a soul to hell. He only told Christine she could give away the button when this became a last resort.
Minor nitpick, but the Wikipedia article mentions that the train is "barrelling towards [Christine]". So a train is charging through a major terminal station (Los Angeles Union) at, most likely, a very unsafe speed. Surely the engineer would know the speed limits? If, over in England, a train ran at high speed through a major station like Exeter St Davids or Southampton Central, both of which have tight speed limits and are required stops for all passenger trains, there would be major repercussions.
In my city when a train isn't making a stop (they call them express trains here) it barrels through the station very quickly.
Aren't all passenger trains supposed to stop at Los Angeles Union though?
I wouldn't know, i should have specified earlier that i am from New York City.
As a major train station, all passenger routes going that way stop at LAUS. Given she was heading to Santa Barbara, the train would not have been travelling at that speed in real life, and indeed, would have been entering Union Station backwards, so the locomotive appearing first would not be accurate either.
It's a Plot Hole. Los Angeles Union has no through tracks, a train at that speed is about to have a very unpleasant accident.
So, Mrs. Ganush has no money to make payments on her loan, and goes to the bank to get an extension. Christine doesn't give it to her, thus gets cursed for her selfish (from Mrs. Ganush's view) ways. But, when Ganush is dead, her house is filled with extended Roma stereotypes/family who are merrily feasting and cavorting. Could they not scrape together to make a payment on her house after two extensions? Why is it that their failure to help Ganush is overlooked but Christine's gets her dragged to Hell?
Maybe Ganush's family will all be going to Hell too — they just aren't under a gypsy curse to take them right away and will have to wait until they die.
I'd say it's for the same reason she didn't want to go live with her granddaughter: She doesn't want to be dependent on anybody.
That changes the context of the entire situation, because that means Ganush is punishing Christine for not indulging her in a sinful level of pride. Ganush really can't afford to pay her loan even after an extension; Christine may have been motivated by greed in that she wanted to look good at her job, but that doesn't mean that giving Ganush the extension was the correct thing to do, either. If she really can't pay her bills and is using the loan extension as a way to maintain a facade of independence, while she has the option to live within her means but refuses because it would mean humbling herself before her family, then Ganush isn't in a morally-superior position to be cursing Christine in the first place.
I read somewhere that this movie apparently has some kind of anorexia subtext. Um... can someone explain that, please? Cause I'm not seeing it beyond the mention that Christine used to be fat (Then again, I only saw the movie a while ago...)
Well, from what I recall, the anorexia theory was based around the fact that most all of the gross things that happen to Christine involve her getting something in her mouth/being force-fed (the dream!Ganush pukes worms in her mouth, the shed!Ganush's eye flying into her mouth, corpse!Ganush spits corpse juice into her mouth, etc) and the fact that the only times we see her eat either turn the food into something disgusting (at the dinner) or treat it as an act of defeat (the ice cream binge and the sundaes at the diner). There's also a small moment when she passes a pastry shop near the beginning and has to stop herself from going in.
There's also Mrs. Ganush's dirty yellow nails, her false dentures and Christine getting her hair pulled out. Eating disorders can cause hair, teeth and nails to decay.
There are also several references to Christine having been a chubby child, including a photo of her as the Pork Queen at her local fair. Mrs Ganush's granddaughter even taunts Christine about it, saying; "You used to be a real fat girl, didn't you? I can tell." There's a hint that Christine either has/had an eating disorder, or has worked very hard indeed to become slim.
What pisses me off about this movie is the when that young woman said Christine deserves whatever comes to her. Does she know about the curse? If so, what kind of bullshit is that to damn someone to hell when not was Ganush pushing her chances but was the one who set herself up for shame in the first place?
The goal of the seance seems to be to get the lamia into the goat and then kill the goat to send it away. So why isn't the guy with the machete sitting right next to the goat with his machete raised ready to kill it as soon as the lamia goes into it? The lamia escapes because he wasn't ready.
Shock, one supposes. Being told that a demon is going to possess a goat and do freaky things is one thing, even believing it is one thing, actually seeing it happen is another. But probably more importantly, because Sam Raimi wasn't done with his torturing of the voodoo doll Christine at that point.
Why is the concept of God absent from this movie? No matter what your religion is, the plot revolves around a curse where a demon drags you to hell. Yet not only does Christine not consider going to an exorcist, but also the name of God isn't even invoked during the failed exorcism sequence. I don't even think the word "god" is used at all in the movie. So why was it absent, when in other situations of demons people might call a priest or something?
If I had to take a guess, it's because Sam Raimi is most likely an atheist and doesn't believe in God, so the thought that Christine could get help from the church never crossed his mind. However, Hell is convenient to telling the story, so it still exists.
We are supposed to believe that Sylvia is the same person that at the start, 'doomed a little boy to Hell FOR A NECKLACE and then think that she is right in cursing Christine? Sam Raimi, have you lost your goddamn mind?
In fiction Gypsies are right twats. It's not just in Drag Me to Hell, in Stephen King's Thinner they do roughly the same thing. Buffy the Vampire Slayer's gypsies flat out admit they serve vengeance NOT justice. So ultimately I'd chalk it up Gypsies are jerks.
I think you missed the part that Sylvia is actually the villain of the story, Raimi isnít trying to make us think she is in any way right, all the opposite.
Except Raimi has stated the exact opposite and that he does think Christine deserved Hell for not giving infinite extensions on the loan.