One must make certain allowances. I recognize that this is adapted from manga, for example. So far as I can tell this is the only credit for screenwriter Hiroto Okajima, and one of relatively few credits for director Iwao Takahashi. It's possible that the choices made here were entirely deliberate, a reflection of intent to first and foremost pay homage to the source material, and in other instances maybe just a result of insufficient resources to allow this to take its ideal form. It's possible that the hardcoded subtitles butchered the translation of the actual dialogue and is not a meaningful, useful reflection of it. These and potentially other factors may be at play, subsequently mitigating whatever criticism one may have to level against the final product. Yet I don't know to a certainty how much any such factors come into play, if indeed at all, and I can only take the feature at face value. Unfortunately, 'Mail' as we see it is saddled with multiple, enduring issues that weigh upon the viewing experience and significantly diminish the entertainment value.
We might generously accept that the achingly bare-faced production values and image quality indicate not so much a shortcoming of the picture but instead some confluence of digital transfer, video settings, and screen settings; these things do happen. On the other hand, any practical effects come across as surprisingly unsophisticated, and this is to say nothing of post-production visuals that come across as outdated by at least ten years, and which would be right at home on public access television. These are relatively minor, however, in comparison to questionable sequencing; to astonishingly simplified and simplistic dialogue (e.g., "I'm an ordinary teenage girl," or how Akiba always repeats the same lines before using his weapon); to blunt, Just So scene writing and plot development; and to overwrought, melodramatic direction that direly accentuates the artificiality at every turn. I can only suppose that such problems are either abject illustration of the limitations of the writer, director, and/or editor - or, not knowing any better, maybe demonstrative of an effort to so faithfully translate the manga to the cinematic medium that these traits were directly ported over, possibly shot for shot (or rather, frame to shot). Yet even if that's true, it doesn't speak well to the creative process here; what works in one storytelling medium does not necessarily work in another, and there was absolutely a sufficiently long history of film adaptations of manga before 2004 such that the filmmakers here should know better.
Even sound and vocal effects echo that low-grade essence, not to mention the choices made regarding some specific shots; the broad lack of music (otherwise heavily deemphasized) only serves with its absence to make the contrivances more apparent. All these matters are terribly regrettable, for there really is a lot to like here otherwise. The episodic nature of the narrative may be atypical but is (a) perfectly fine as it effectively gives us multiple loosely but increasingly connected vignettes across these two hours, and (b) another facet carried over from the manga. In a select few instances when all the elements are perfectly aligned, some moments are able to foster earnest atmosphere, or elicit chills, commensurate with the horror genre on hand. Despite the deep deficiencies and weaknesses in how the movie was crafted, the cast try so admirably to give honest performances that shine through the glaring inauthenticity. (Some succeed more than others, for example Chiaki Kuriyama; actors portraying ghosts sadly come off just as poorly as all else I've mentioned.) And by all means, I think the root ideas are strong, telling the story of a man tasked with putting wayward spirits to rest. Would that, on top of all the other observed troubles, the tone here weren't so limp that most of the length passes unremarkably, further enabling those tawdry distractions to take greater hold. Would that the full potential of the concept could have been met, in the very least imbuing more select moments with more dark or at least intense vibrancy to make the notion of "wayward spirits" mean something. As it is, 'Mail' is delivered all too flatly, and even as a horror-drama of a gentler variety the telling rather flags.
I see what it could have been. On paper the tale is compelling, and should strike a major chord. "On paper" is the key phrase, however, for between the unconvincing writing and the flaccid direction, the title is robbed of nearly all the power it might have had. Add the other frailties on top and it becomes a minor miracle that the ending is able to land as well as it does. All told I don't dislike it, but it makes a poor first impression, and overall it's so meager, with such distinct fragilities along the way, that it seemed necessary to divide the viewing experience into several smaller chunks just to be able to get through it; what favor I bestow was very hard won. I'm glad for those who enjoy 'Mail' more than I do, which I presume will be those who are fans of the source material. I don't regret spending time on this, but I can't imagine ever watching again, and I don't know who I would recommend it to in light of the uphill climb the film faces from the very beginning. 'Mail' is modestly worth checking out if you do have the chance to watch, a horror-drama with firm foundations, but don't go out of your way for it, and temper whatever expectations you may have.
0 out of 1 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
