This script was loads of fun. I had a big smile on my face the whole time reading it. Maybe 'cause I've seen the movie and remembered it fondly. But I wouldn't exactly call it horror-comedy. More tongue-in-cheek-horror. The writing is very lean, no unnecessary stuff. Good examples of 'enter late, exit early.' Like the scene at the police station on page 22. And on page 28, “So this is him. Got a name?” Quick. To the point. No need for any over-explanations. Even though it was co-written by the director, it's written like a “writer” would do it. Very few directions like camera angles and such. And all the action plays out time-wise pretty much as it would on the screen. This is something that is an issue in many amateur scripts - the descriptions are either too long or too short and don't read like they would play out when filmed. Overall a solid structure with well-drawn characters.

Haven't seen the film, and horror isn't my favourite genre, but I was really impressed by the script. It's a fantastically driven, focused piece of writing, with a simple set-up and a clear character goal, and the action sequences are really easy to see in your head as you read them. The characters are essentially standard types, especially Mrs. Ganush, but Stephanie herself is well drawn - her motivation to succeed, to better herself, clearly stemming from insecurity about her past, is relatable and sympathetic. We could all have made that one wrong choice. We're examining it as horror-comedy, but it doesn't read as that comedic on the page - a few dry smiles, perhaps. Possibly it plays as funnier onscreen? Overall, a really good read.

When I look at this script, I see what's missing from scripts by more talented screenwriters. Namely, a strong command of craft. Other scripts may have better dialogue, more memorable characters and more nuanced themes, but they lack the rock-solid construction that makes DMTH easy to follow and easy to get hooked on. Simple but relatable characters are quickly established. Simple but relatable situations are quickly established. And all the supernatural stuff is centered around real human emotions/dilemmas. The same goes for horror classics like Cat People and Rosemary's Baby and Don't Look Now. I wish other horror filmmakers would keep that in mind. Even Nightmare on Elm Street works better than 90% of slasher films because it seizes on a relatable human experience -- nightmares feel real while you're in them...so what if they were?

"More tongue-in-cheek-horror." I agree. And I think that's why the genre-bending works for the most part. The horror is tied in with the humor rather than being, say, a monster movie with jokes on the side. For example, Stephanie (Christine in the film) is attacked by a woman with supernatural powers, so she has to defend herself. But that means beating the crap out of an old lady...which is kinda funny. And the fact that a petty annoyance like the "No mustard" incident (which is done even better in the film) leads to eternal damnation is hilariously horrifying.

Oh, and how about that title? DRAG ME TO HELL. Kinda grabs your attention...

I am just getting to the script, but I wanted to ask -- because some people brought it up earlier -- what key scenes are different in the movie compared to the script? And for those who have read the script and seen the movie, why do you think they made the changes they did for the film?

It's been a couple of years since I saw it but from what I can tell there really isn't that much of a difference. The whole plot is all there in the script. They added a prologue in the film and I believe they eliminated the roommate. I Netflixed it and will be getting it tomorrow and I will make a more thorough comparison then.

One major difference/improvement is the opening scene. SHAUN SAN DENA: I lost a young boy's soul to the beast. The opening scene shows this failed seance (now set in California). It not only starts the movie off with a bang, but it also sets the tone for what follows. That is, once you see a little boy dragged into hell for a petty offense, you know all bets are off. It may be a Hollywood movie, but that doesn't mean you're getting a Hollywood ending. Also, the female friend, Ellen, is not in the film. She's not really necessary or interesting enough to keep, so it's better just to cut her out. During the cat burial scene, a rare key moment for her -- the "Is that blood?" exchange -- are easily given to Ray/Clay.

I'll preface all of my comments by saying I really don't ever watch horror. Just can't bring myself to do it! But I wanted to read the script as a learning exercise. Other than having a knot in my stomach the whole read (in preparation of gory bits and being scared out of my mind) I have to say I was pleasantly surprised! It's really tight and the story flows well with well drawn characters as others have mentioned above. I didn't find it laugh out loud funny and perhaps the movie plays differently on screen but I felt it more ironic (especially the final scene). Not sure I'll be putting the movie on but glad I read it!

As I finished reading the script, I went: Wow, what a great name. But, I believe it's the other way round; the story sprouted from the name, especially the structure. Drag me to Hell:

= What the Lamia will do to Steph. = What the old lady does to her in the cemetery, with the mud pouring in. = What ambitious Steph. does to good, fair Steph. throughout the story: she loses her poise, kills an animal, is willing to commit murder, and in the end gloats as she gets the job and defeats the old lady. But the way she dies is interestingly her fault as no supernatural presence is sensed at that moment, but she falls and surrenders. (her boyfriend is her opposite and will discuss that in character)

*we'll Sorry about the detached comment.

OK, sorry I am late coming in - travelling and reading and writing on planes. I have to say that horror is absolutely not my genre - so most of my reactions to the script are pretty negative. But I know that that is not necessarily a reaction to the writing of the script - I am just not into this kind of story. I watched the trailer for it on YouTube before deciding to participate in it - and I have NO desire to ever see this movie! But, like Sam, I am here for the learning exercise. OK, well, in general I found the characters pretty stereotypical, and even most of the pacing and plot points seemed pretty predictable. Which I guess is part of the aim of horror - you have to set your audience up to know that the scary thing is coming, so they get scared to the max. There were a few surprises along the way - that she actually did kill the kitty, and that Shaun the medium died. But for the most part, the characters were pretty simple and one-dimensional, not complexity. I have a big beef with plot points being conicendtal - and this one had reams of them: - Stephanie overhearing Ray' call with mom - Stu finding the McPherson file - Mr. Jacks somehow finding out about Stu's betrayal Oh, and I did not find the comedy aspect of this anywhere. Oops, boarding... more soon...

The first thing that strikes me about DMTH is it hearkens back to an historic story setup: Whereby a person turns their back on a stranger, only the stranger turns out to be a powerful entity. For example, "The Beauty and the Beast": "The Prince informs Belle that long ago a fairy turned him into a hideous beast after he refused to let her in from the rain." In the New Testament Matthew 25:41-46: "Then the king will say to those bad people on his left, 'Go away from me. God has already decided that you will be punished. Go into the fire that burns forever. That fire was prepared for the devil and his angels. You must go away, because I was hungry, and you gave me nothing to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me nothing to drink. I was alone and away from home, and you did not invite me into your home. I was without clothes, and you gave me nothing to wear. I was sick and in prison, and you did not care for me.' "Then those people will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty? When did we see you alone and away from home? Or when did we see you without clothes or sick or in prison? When did we see these things and not help you?' "Then the king will answer, 'I tell you the truth. Anything you refused to do for any of my people here, you refused to do for me.' "Then those bad people will go away. They will have punishment forever. But the good people will go and have life forever." From the victim's perspective, the Protagonist of the story had an opportunity to help them [Victim], but when the P doesn't, that opens up the option for revenge. Psychologically this reaches way back in time as we evolved out of sheer lizard-brain -- doing anything we could to survive -- to testing out strangers we met along the way, at least acknowledging that there could be some good people out there. The truth is any situation where one character intersects with another is rife to go bad in two general ways: Either the Other is a Bad Person and will harm us directly or if we do not help the Other, they may choose to exact revenge on us. DMTH is a great example of using a narrative archetype -- Be careful who you don't help as they may come back to harm you -- that has a long history and powerful associations in human culture.

I haven't read the script yet (it's on my to-do list) but I have seen the movie. I don't think DMTH is a comedy, per se, but certain scenes did make me laugh just because they are so completely over the top you can't help but giggle in shock (the fight with Mrs. Ganush is a great example). I'm sure I'll have more to say when I finish the script!