GHOST OF MAE NAK (2005)

The 20th film version of the Thai legend of Mae Nak (you might have seen the popular Nang Nak) concerns a young Thai couple named Mak and Nak, who love each other to a sickly sweet degree. The newlyweds move in together in an ancient-looking house in Bangkok. But that’s when things start to go wrong, with the couple’s shonky real estate agent the least of the problems when it appears that the house is occupied. Actually, haunted is the more precise term, and this ghost is restless, seemingly having unfinished business.

Directed by Brit Mark Duffield, this Thai horror film is yet another reason why I am really getting annoyed with Asian horror. Whilst the recent crop of J-horror has been the main culprit, Duffield’s film boils down to a retread of the same long haired, pasty faced spooky-ghosts-looking-for-revenge-in-bland-apartment yarn which we’ve seen in Ringu, Ju-On: The Grudge, and Dark Water, and that's without even mentioning the American remakes which IMHO, have mostly been improvements, though I like both versions of Dark Water. In the director’s commentary Duffield admits to getting his ideas from non-Asian horror classics. I spotted a few definite steals from the John Carpenter school of fright film-making in terms of scene composition (and why not?) and at least one moment echoing Roman Polanski’s classic Repulsion. If there was an original idea in this entire film, I must have missed it (being based on an oft-filmed legend is no excuse, by the way). I mean, there’s even a medicine cabinet moment, the type where they open the door which has a mirror, and when they close it again- Boo!, or more precisely, Zzzzzz. And I kid you not, there's even an ancient burial ground!
It also doesn't help that our in-love on screen couple are just about the most boring people on Earth, as people happily in love tend to be. And when tragedy strikes, well, mopey would be an understatement. The lead actor can only be described as uber-vanilla, and if my only thoughts on the lead actress during the film are that she has a cute behind…well, I guess that just reveals more about me now that I think of it. Also, I understand that bowing is very much an important custom in many cultures, but I swear, if you cut out all the scenes of people bowing before speaking in this film, it would be half as long and half as painful! And that ending…boy did that suck.

But y’know what? The film actually didn’t quite suck. Writer-director Duffield may not be a genius filmmaker (or an original writer), but as the film’s cinematographer, he sure knows how to paint a pretty picture. The Thai scenery is exotic and certainly helps, much in the same way the locales in a James Bond film add flavour to the film. The film’s colour scheme is also worth a mention, with lots of lovely blues and greens, instead of the usual scum-flavoured cinematography (did I just coin a new phrase?) one tends to find in say the J-horror films. Particularly effective are the flashback scenes telling the story of Mae Nak, which are so impressive and interesting that I wished the entire film was like that (It was, in a film called Nang Nak). And, despite, as I say, Duffield not being much of a director, he at least shows here that he has learnt from all those old Val Lewton RKO horror films that turning the lights off can be the most scariest thing of all. Best of all he gives us scenes of gore. Not necessarily always well orchestrated- the decapitation isn’t really convincing, but hey, I love a decapitation whether it’s done well or not (I’m sick, so sue me!). Even better is a truly yummy bit involving a guy getting split in half- that’s one to rewind and replay over and over. Even funnier is when a dog comes along and picks up the severed hand (Mind you, that gag’s been done before).
The DVD package comes with several rather dull extras. Duffield has an audio commentary, in which he doesn't’t spend as much time as I would have liked talking about his experiences as a Brit making a Thai film based on a Thai legend, with Thai actors. I just thought that was odd- the most he says is that Bangkok is noisy. Gee, thanks for that bit of cultural insight, Mark! He also seems to think the film and his filmmaking prowess is a lot better than it clearly is. But hey, it’s his audio commentary, he can say what he wants to. He does tell an interesting story about the impressive title sequence that just goes to show you don’t need to spend lots of money to shoot something cool. He also does a hell of a lot of storytelling throughout- we’re watching the film with you, Mr. Duffield (and presumably already have once before), we’re not idiots!

Also included is an “On the Set” feature which is completely tedious, mostly free of interviews and sparse voice-over, with not much going on (probably indicative of the filmmaking process in general). Subtitles do give us handy hints like ‘This is about to blow up!’. Wow, thanks for the heads up! We do get to see one scene filmed that was actually cut from the film, for those interested. “Outtakes”- this feature is just about the dumbest extra I’ve ever seen (Yes, even dumber than the Spaceballs commentary by the Dinks!). There are no subtitles and no one is speaking English, so I couldn’t understand what was so damn funny! We also get a feature called “The Premiere”, and if you need me to explain what that involves, well, perhaps movies aren’t for you- try pop-up books, they’re fun!