Guest Writer Julian Suhr: "Drag Me To Hell" Review

It's my pleasure to offer you another guest post from Julian Suhr, author of the movie review blog Never Mind The Bats. Enjoy.

I'm kind of at a loss as far as reviewing "Drag Me To Hell" goes, largely because I really don't like horror movies. I can't see the point of needless fear for fear's sake, especially as we begin to live in increasingly terrifying times. Of course, I have an elaborate double standard at work: I like horror movies that I like. Zombie movies are fine, as were "The Host" and "Let The Right One In." And I don't consider Hitchcock movies to be horror (even though the ones I enjoy are more thrillers, but whatever). My taxonomy breaks down like this: movies may be scary or what have you, but a horror movie is one with no point other than to terrify the bejesus out of the audience well after the actual viewing experience is over, and for no real reason of improvement or deeper meaning. It's kind of an extremely subjective definition, as what it boils down to is "whatever doesn't leave me quaking at little noises late at night isn't horror," but I think I've got a point, although my definitions might be a bit off. Take a zombie movie, "28 Days Later." It's pretty goddamn intense throughout, kind of scary, but all in a survival way. Zombies are simply a threat that needs to be dealt with; eliminate the threat and life proceeds as usual. To get further analytical (I spent the cold month of January in a film class on zombie movies, which may have been damaging to my long term mental health, so you'll have to bear with me), "28 Days" can be viewed as an anti-Hobbesian fantasy about the futility of absolute government power, resulting corruption, and the occasional importance of living life nasty, brutal and short (simultaneous thanks and apologies to Christian, the man who is responsible for me bringing this interpretation to you. I have a sinking suspicion that my Hobbes might be a little bootleg, but the core idea seems solid enough). It's also a really smart movie beyond the philosophy and my parantheticals, with heavy post-apocalyptic images, allusions to 9/11, and plenty of other stuff that I can't remember at the moment. Basically, my favorite zombie movie, because the badass zombie violence serves a purpose. Zombie movies, as I was shown in January, provide a means of addressing real-world problems through apocalyptic and audience-friendly scenarios; kind of like satire, but with a lust for human flesh. And I think that the same can go for all other sorts of intelligent horror movies. I've already praised "Let The Right One In" for being as much about human nature and brutality as it is about vampires, and I'm sure that there are other horror movies out there, all excellent, that are about more than the monsters or spirits at hand. We could oversimplify things and refer to these things as "good" horror movies, and they all have the common characteristic that they don't terrify as much as other horror films that use cheap shock tactics and irrational decisions. In these "good" horror films, the real fear is of something deeper psychologically or philosophically than immediate suffering at the hands of evil beings. This fear leads to contemplation instead of adrenaline rushes, and therefore is less terrifying. But I fail to see the point or pleasure of watching something that uses the power of films to exploit audiences via fast cutting, grotesque special effects, and ominous music only for the sake of scaring. Shitty action movies, sure, they're escapist fluff (although I want the two hours of my life that "Hitman" took back). Shitty comedies can be okay as well; I know a guy who loves incredibly mediocre romantic comedies because he finds them unintentionally hilarious, which also brings us to the sort of movie that's so bad it becomes funny, a distinction that defies genre. But I will never for thelife of me understand people who enjoy horror movies. All that rather brings into question my credentials for reviewing a horror film, doesn't it? But "Drag Me To Hell" is unquestionably a horror movie, and one deftly made at that. Setup, as usual, is simple: a loan officer, desirous of promotion, denies a loan extension for an old woman. Poor choice, because this old woman is some kind of a witch-gypsy capable of cursing people. She does, and then young loan officer (forget the names here, and don't feel like looking them up, because they don't make a difference) is tormented by demons, causing her to try and break the curse. It's that simple, but it's very well done. Sam Raimi uses all manner of little tricks and slights-of-film to convey a sense of lingering dread, and we do get rather emotionally involved with young loan officer, which is of course the problem: once we care about a character, we make their problems ours, and then cower in fear. The acting is good, the dialogue inoffensive, and the colors and images (I have no idea why I still remember this) very pleasing and full. Even the special effects are subtle. Like I said, this is a very accomplished horror film. And that's exactly the problem- I can't help but feel a little betrayed by Sam Raimi for making a straight-up scary movie. This was supposed to be a funny horror movie; indeed, "Evil Dead" was invoked in many reviews I read. Unfortunately, all the humor is very subtle and plays second fiddle to the main task of terrifying me with lurking demons and other fucked-up repugnant shit, to paraphrase Jules Winnfield. From what I've seen of "Evil Dead"- and I need to see more- everything is firmly tongue in cheek, lead by Bruce Campbell's wonderful self-assuredness. There is no Bruce Campbell here. Young loan officer girl grows more and more terrified as the movie progresses, only occasionally saying something approaching one-liner quality. The humor comes from the incredible pettiness of the offense (a loan deserves this? really?) and the occasional grotesque torments inflicted upon young loan officer girl, including being puked on thrice and having to wrestle a dead body twice. If there was more of this, and it was all campier, everything would have been a celebration of horror's absurdities, and I would have been a happier camper. Instead, Raimi turns his talents to a straight-up machine for scaring, with no redeeming ending or message. It's very good for what it is, and what it is isn't at all my bag, and leaves me feeling a little frustrated with humanity. Come on guys, do you really need lurking demons to make you fear for a few blissful hours? Read a newspaper. Apologies for length and subjectivity. I really didn't have a lot to say critically due to firmly entrenched opinions on the subject matter, so I decided to foist said opinions upon you. Enjoy, and hopefully join me in my quest to end pointless horror.