Oct 041999
 
five reels

Two groups of treasure-seeking archeologists awaken the mummy of Imhotep.  The creature seeks to resurrect his ancient love by sacrificing a beautiful librarian and only an American adventurer and his comrades can save her and the world.

Quick Review: Blade and The Mummy began a new movement, adventure films masquerading as horror.  In each, a classic monster type is given a new veneer.  Frights are almost non-existant, but one-liners abound, as do exciting fight scenes, beautiful sets, and big budget FX.  Costumes are as important as the plot and it isn’t uncommon for characters to stop to pose.  Other films in the movement include Blade II, The Mummy Returns, Resident Evil, Underworld, and Van Helsing.  What is surprising is how good several of these films are.

The Mummy, which owes far more to Raiders of the Lost Arc than to its 1932 namesake, works on every level.  Brendan Fraser is properly heroic, romantic, and glib.  Rachel Weisz displays innocence and sexuality, fulfilling the film’s requirement of a girl to be rescued while also being a modern woman.  John Hannah is funny as the sidekick (and how often are sidekicks actually funny?) and the monster is impressive, both as actor Arnold Vosloo and as CGI.  The Mummy is spectacle, with impressive art direction, and a dramatic, orientalist score by Jerry Goldsmith.  There’s a few questionable plot points, but nothing that interrupts the flow of the film.  This is what Saturday afternoon at the movies is all about.

 Mummies, Reviews Tagged with:
Oct 041999
 
one reel

Tsukiko is a regular girl with amnesia.  She doesn’t worry much about the loss of her memories, but she’s none-to-happy about her bouts of insomnia, so she’s started visiting a laconic hypnotherapist who’s office looks suspiciously like a quickly built and non-dressed set.  In a trance, Tsukiko repeats the name “Tomie,” which is the summoning call for Detective Exposition.  He’s been obsessing about a closed case and questions the doctor by giving out far more information than he gets.  For no particular reason, he explains that Tsukiko wasn’t in a car wreck, but really conspired with classmates and her teacher to kill a girl named “Tomie” who’d swiped her boyfriend.  Even though no body was found, everyone turned themselves in and were promptly sent to an asylum.  Tsukiko was released to wallow in her repressed memories and the wacky teacher has recently escaped.  With his job of stating everything the movie wasn’t showing done, the detective takes off, never suspecting that the teacher has taken the apartment below Tsukiko and carries a living severed head that’s growing itself a new body.  But wait, there’s more.  After nothing happens for a while, Detective Exposition reappears to giveaway the rest of the story.  He believes that Tomie has been killed many times (because hey, if two victims have the same name, they must be the same person) and is really a demon that drives all men insane with desire and jealousy.  Eventually, they either kill for her or kill her.  If the second, she just regenerates and repeats.  Again, with his job of telling way too much completed, he’s off to do nothing more of consequence.

Have I given away too much of the plot?  You’d think so, but Tomie tosses all this out early just to make sure there’s not a speck of mystery or suspense.

Tomie is the first film in a series that numbers eight and growing.  They all were inspired by a manga, which makes some sense because this first film couldn’t inspire a poorly focused Polaroid.  Paced to match a wounded snail, Tomie isn’t surprising, shocking, exciting, frightening, or interesting.  It isn’t even shot well.  It’s hardly a movie.  It’s people talking about a movie.

The concept is intriguing: A beautiful girl drives all men crazy until one murders her.  This amuses her and she comes back to do it again.  Think what a good movie could do with that.  A confused girl could try to uncover the mystery while her friends begin to kill each other.  Great stuff, but none of that’s here.  There’s no mystery.  Nada.  Nor does any character ever discover anything.  It’s all just dropped in our laps.  Instead of action or plot and character development, we get to see Tsukiko riding her bike and taking a few pictures.  Then she smokes a cigarette with her doctor.  Then there’s some more bike riding.  Oh, did I skip that she ate dinner after taking some more pictures?  Yes, that kind of riotous entertainment just keeps coming.  Tsukiko and company also chat.  They don’t discuss things relevant to murders and an undying succubus.  Nope, they just chat.  That is except for the detective, one of the worse characters in recent Asian cinema.  I kept expecting him to do something important to progress the story.  But he has no part in the tale.  He shows up to tell us what the film should have shown us, and that’s it.  He doesn’t catch Tomie or deal with Tsukiko.  He never even sees them.

For Occidental viewers, the pathetic subtitles add another layer of incompetence.  I doubt the people involved had a thorough understanding of English.  At least this creates one way to have fun with the movie: guessing what the proper words should have been.

Tomie has an above average, horror-movie concept, but nothing else.

Oct 031999
 
five reels

Ichabod Crane (Johnny Depp) is sent to Sleepy Hollow to investigate a series of murders.  There he discovers secret plots, a beautiful girl (Christina Ricci), and stories of a headless horseman (Christopher Walken).  But the horseman isn’t a legend, but a ghost, and he has more heads to chop off before he’s done.

Quick Review: With any Tim Burton film, it is a competition between his poor sense of plotting, lackluster climaxes, and on-and-off casting with his innovative production design, beautiful art direction, and lush, dreamlike cinematography.  When the first wins, he gives us Planet of the Apes.  When the second, Sleepy Hollow.

Nothing in Sleepy Hollow looks real, nor does it look fake.  It is a bewitching world a step or two sideways from our own where even a beheading looks elegant.  The sky is forever overcast, tinting everything a radiant blue-black, not the gray we would expect.  Nothing is ugly and the grotesque is alluring.  This is a great picture to look at.  The story is surprisingly intriguing, and if it falls into a simple Hollywood finale, at least it’s been a ride.  Johnny Depp and Christina Ricci have no chemistry together, and the script gives no reason to accept the required romance between the asexual Ichabod and the overly soft spoken Katrina, but both are good on their own, as delicate statues in Burton’s strange world.

I suppose this is a horror film.  There’s plenty of gore, violence, and ghosts and witches.  There’s even a few scares for the young or easily rattled.  But this feels like a gentle fantasy, a little gothic in nature, that makes a repulsive setting look inviting.  If only I had Burton’s eye when I look around me.

Oct 021999
 
two reels

American Jack Woods (Randy Quaid) travels to a village in Ireland to buy up property, and falls in love with local girl Kathleen Fitzpatrick (Orla Brady).  He also saves the leprechaun king,  Seamus Muldoon (Colm Meaney).  While Jack and Kathleen begin a stormy relationship, Mickey (Daniel Betts), the son of the leprechaun king, and Princess Jessica (Caroline Carver), the daughter of the trooping faerie king (Roger Daltrey), are reenacting Romeo and Juliet.  Although The Grand Banshee (Whoopi Goldberg) warns of dread consequences to nature, the two groups go to war.

I have the same thought when watching any of the too few leprechaun movies that exists: it isn’t very good, but its all we’ve got for St. Patrick’s Day.  The Magical Legend of the Leprechauns is overlong, silly instead of funny, saccharine instead of romantic, and routine instead of exciting.  But you can only watch Darby O’Gill and the Little People so many times, and it isn’t all that good either.  So, until someone makes five or six good movies for the holiday, this will have to do.

Going for a non-hip, 1950s-era family audience, there are some touching moments.  The story of the two fae lovers works, although it follows the plot of Romeo and Juliet point by point.  They are likable and a fair amount of sympathy is built for them.  While too generic to carry the entire show, they are charming for their portion.  Unfortunately, as they are part of a dramatic romance, much of the slapstick and broad (though not funny) comedy undercuts any emotions their situation invokes.

Randy Quaid is believable as an everyman.  It is odd he doesn’t play this kind of part more often.  However, he has little chemistry with Orla Brady.  Why should these two get together?  Well, she’s beautiful and there aren’t many other options available in the area for her.  I guess those are reasons, but not ones to get me involved in their plight.

Colm Meaney makes an acceptable leprechaun, although his King Muldoon isn’t substantially different than the standard rogue he’s played in multiple films.  The rest of the actors are woefully miscast.  Daltrey (once the lead singer for The Who), purses his lips and speaks with the kind of puffed up bluster that children manage when imitating people they don’t like.  It is embarrassing.  The extraordinarily non-Irish Whoopi Goldberg (who doesn’t attempt an accent to everyone’s relief) does her wise Guinan routine from Star Trek, and I can’t think of anyway she could have been less like a Celtic spirit.  However, I’m sure screenplay and directing had more to do with their pathetic performances than their abilities.

The special effects do their job, but nothing more and have no “wow” factor.  The expansive Irish hills and fields (filmed in England) look attractive so if you want a travel log (to the wrong country), this will suffice.

The Magical Legend of the Leprechauns strikes the wrong note.  It needed to drop the drama and insert some honestly funny moments, or pull back on all of the absurdities, and give us an action-adventure fantasy.  As it is, I can’t imagine who it could satisfy.  But, in a supply and demand world, there is still a place for it in mid-March.

 Holiday Films, Reviews Tagged with:
Sep 271999
 
one reel

With his sister hanging on the Christmas tree, the Angry Kid (voice: Darren Walsh) is filmed giving the Queen’s traditional Christmas address, but he can’t get it right.  2 min.

The Angry Kid series of short-shorts have gotten a wide distribution via the Internet.  While you can pay for them (a DVD is available), I doubt anyone would have seen them (or seen more than one) if they weren’t easy to get for free.  At a cost of nothing, they are still overpriced.

Created at Aardman studios, which is also responsible for Wallace and Gromit, Angry Kid displays none of the wit of its more famous cousin.  The animation technique is interesting (involving live actors with ever-changing masks filmed in stop motion), but without a script, or a funny joke, technique doesn’t mean much.

Queen’s Speech is below average for the series.  The Kid flubs his lines in various ways while sitting on a couch.  That’s all there is to it.  Running under two minutes, it somehow manages to drag.  There are better things to spend zero dollars on.

Sep 261999
 
four reels

Titus (Anthony Hopkins), an honored general, sacrifices one of his captives, a prince of the Goths.  The queen of the Goths vows revenge which leads to betrayal and death.

Quick Review:This is what you get if Shakespeare wrote the The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and ramped up the violence.  I’ve never seen any film that is more grisly and shocking than Titus and that isn’t the result of additions by director Julie Taymor; Shakespeare wrote it that way.  It is fascinating, but not for the squeamish.  Before the end credits roll, there are gruesome murders, rape, cannibalism, and sickening mutilations.  Taymor has set this horror tale in a strange, surrealistic world, partly modern, partly absurdist Roman.  That fits as Titus couldn’t exist in a real place or time.  Look for nothing of reality here, nor for deep meaning.  This is tragedy for fun, and it is fun, in a really creepy way.

 Reviews, Shakespeare Tagged with:
Jul 281999
 
one reel

A group of peasant actors, including the blustering Nick Bottom (Kevin Kline), and four mixed-up lovers (Anna Friel, Calista Flockhart, Dominic West, Christian Bale) end up as pawns in a fight between faerie royalty (Michelle Pfeiffer, Rupert Everett) on midsummer night.

Lust. Lots and lots of lust.  That’s what A Midsummer Night’s Dream is about. That and low comedy. It isn’t tricky to put on a successful production. Just make the faeries  bold and sexy, the lovers foolish and sexy, and the acting troop ridiculous and crude. That’s it. It’s hard to fail. But director Michael Hoffman fails by missing all of those. He starts off well with casting a group of extremely attractive people: Kevin Kline, Michelle Pfeiffer, Rupert Everett, Calista Flockhart, Dominic West, Christian Bale, Anna Friel, and Sophie Marceau. They sure have the basic material to be sexy. And the setting is lush and ripe. But that’s all he gets right, falling into the “proper Shakespeare” trap. Hoffman removes all the passion and cleans up the humor to the point that only a scholastic nun could be happy. There are scenes where you might smile, but you should be falling out of your chair. It doesn’t help that he has hacked the play apart, cutting out a substantial portion of the faerie dialog. He also moves the story to 19th century Tuscany, apparently in the belief that modern audiences would be unfamiliar with ancient Athens, but find the dawning age of bicycles in Northern Italy to be old hat. It does no real harm, but it also serves no purpose. That’s how I felt about the entire film: no harm, but no purpose.  Lord, what fools these directors be.

  
Back to Shakespeare

 Reviews, Shakespeare Tagged with:
Jul 111999
 
two reels

A wealthy, amusement park owner, Stephen H. Price (Geoffrey Rush), in an unhappy marriage with his unfaithful wife (Famke Janssen), decides to have her birthday party in a closed insane asylum where atrocities took place.  However, the guests (Taye Diggs, Peter Gallagher, Chris Kattan, Ali Larter, Bridgette Wilson) were chosen not by him, but by the house.

Quick Review: 1999s second FX extravaganza remake of a haunted house movie (The Haunting is the other), The House on Haunted Hill is slickly crafted, B-movie schlock in an A-movie wrapper.  The cast is filled with competent second tier actors, who are underused by a script that demands mainly screaming and frowning (but they do a good job of that).  Unlike its competitor, there are some creepy moments, particularly when visions of the past appear on video screens.  The setup supplies many possible mysteries.  With the Price’s failing marriage, any strange occurrence could be the result of ghosts, or could be one of them trying to get at the other.  However this bogs down the middle of the film, once it is obvious that there are malignant spirits everywhere.

Horror film clichés are in abundance.  The group keeps splitting up.  That’s reasonable early on, but absurd later.  They meander around the lower levels because that’s what victims do, and die one by one, alone.  And they are nothing more than victims as there is no character development.  I’m less troubled by those shortcomings than by ghosts that can access a laptop and change documents via the phone line (which apparently the ghosts do).

The film starts much like the 1959 version but varies considerably in its second half.  The millionaire is named after Vincent Price, the star of the first.

Back to Ghost Stories

 Ghost Stories, Reviews Tagged with:
Apr 111999
 
three reels

Dr. David Marrow (Liam Neeson) brings three insomniacs, Nell (Lili Taylor), Theo (Catherine Zeta-Jones), and Luke (Owen Wilson) to a mansion for a psychological study. What he doesn’t tell the others is that he is really studying fear. What he doesn’t know is that the house is really haunted.

Quick Review: This is a case of style over substance, but when style wins with such gusto, why complain?  Based on a Shirley Jackson novel that made it to the big screen in 1963, this version takes the opposite approach to the first’s less-is-more philosophy by indulging in spectacular sets and flashy FX. The story is a simple re-telling of the standard ghost story, with a few gaping holes. As long as you don’t look too closely, it’s a good ride. The characters are multi-dimensional, but never coalesce into anything sensible.  Wilson plays the easy going one of the group and is the closest to appearing like a real, if clownish, person. Zeta-Jones is beautiful and sexy and plays a character who is beautiful and sexy (hey, sometimes casting isn’t tricky). Taylor’s Nell is dangerously close to being annoying, but manages, just barely, to invoke sympathy.

The real star is the impressive English manor used for exterior shots, and the colorful, elaborate, haunted house interiors. This is a beautiful, velvet blanket of a film that feels great to roll around in. In the end, it has the depth of a blanket, but who doesn’t love that feel?

Back to Ghost Stories

Apr 021999
 
3,5 reels

Four years earlier, Ayana Hirasaka’s parents were crushed by Gamera in his fight against the gyoas. Now she lives with her uncaring aunt and uncle in a miserable little town filled with terrible teens. Within a temple, she finds, and binds with, a strange creature that is related to Gamera and the gyoas. It grows, and she sees it as her opportunity for revenge against Gamera. Elsewhere, the gyoas have returned, attacking all over the world, and Gamera’s attempts to stop them have racked up a far greater death toll than the flying lizards themselves. Elsewhere, Mayumi Nagamine is again studying the gyoas problem and trying to find a solution, and she brings back now ex-Inspector Osako and Asagi. Meanwhile, government policy is being influence by a cultist and a strange game designer.

Now this is how make a sequel. It isn’t just the same old monster battles, but an inversion of the first film. In Gamera: Guardian of the Universe, we saw a few negative side effects of a giant monster hero, but for the most part, it is clear that Gamera is great and cheerleading was the way to go. Not so here. This is about collateral damage (from monster fighting, yes, but also from any military or police activity). There are brutal and beautiful shots of Gamera mowing down thousands of people. He slips and shoots a fire ball into a coffee house. He focuses all his attention on burning a gyoas, an attack that fries everyone on the street for blocks. He stumbles into a building and it crashes down on those below. We saw the good in having a powerful weapon on our side; here’s the bad.

Everything is about side-effects. Osako was destroyed by the events of the previous two movies. He’s suffering from PTSD on the streets until Nagamine finds him. It is possible that Gamera is what has drawn the monsters to Japan, and all of the damage is what has allowed kooks access to the highest level of government. And then there is Ayanna, who is the anti-Asagi. Asagi has faith, which is easy to have when things have worked out. The cult-lady has faith too, and that doesn’t work out well. Ayana has pain and longs for revenge. When another kid tries to tell her that Gamera is her friend, I (and Ayanna) wanted to kick him in the shin.

Too bad Revenge of Iris can’t keep up that level of storytelling. For three-fourths of the runtime, only Godzilla ’54 was in its league. But the filmmakers didn’t know what to do with the ending. That’s not surprising as while this isn’t a kids film, it still wants to play a bit in the young adult world, so it doesn’t go as dark as it needed to. We get some deaths, but the film needed more, as well as a better wrap-up for the theme. This is a very good movie, that was reaching for greatness, and couldn’t hold on. But very good will do.

Mar 021999
 
three reels

At a focus group demonstration of the new virtual reality game, eXistenZ, its creator, Allegra Geller (Jennifer Jason Leigh), is shot by a fanatic “Realist.” Wounded, and with a bounty on her head, she escapes with marketing trainee, Ted Pikul (Jude Law). She fears the shooting damaged her game pod, and the only way to know is to jack in and play the game. But once in the game, how do they know if they are out again, and how can they tell what is real?

The third of 1999’s virtual reality movies (The Matrix and The Thirteenth Floor were the others), eXistenZ is certainly the weirdest. And that brings me to my game (as I learned from eXistenZ that everything is a game): to see if I can use the word “weird” in this review even half the number of times I turned to my wife and said “weird” while watching the film. My wife, instead, said “Ewwww.”

It’s no surprise that this is a weird film; it was directed by weird-meister David Cronenberg who has made a career of examining society through the weirdest (I’m counting variants of “weird”) metaphors he could find or just looking at the weirdest subset of our culture. The grandest example of runaway weirdness was 1996’s Crash; Cronenberg took J.G. Ballard’s weird novel about people with a weird fetish for auto crashes, and turned it into an even weirder film where James Spader (a veteran of weird cinema) attempts to sexually penetrate Rosanna Arquette’s open wound.

In 1991, Cronenberg attempted to put a plot into the near random, weird, drug-induced ramblings of William S. Burroughs, a man who brings extravagance to being weird.  The film, Naked Lunch, is fascinating in it’s stylish weirdness, with biomechanical typewriters weirdly issuing commands, but is unengaging. It is 1983’s Videodrome, a weird treatise on the media, reality, and obsession, that is eXistenZ’s progenitor. In it, reality and the video world merge with weird consequences, including gun-flesh combinations and video tapes being inserted into weird, vaginal stomach openings.  eXistenZ could be thought of as a remake or a sequel, but with videotapes replaced by videogames.   (Nope, I’m not even coming close. Oh well, at least we’ve established that the film is weird.)

The basic story of eXistenZ is surprisingly normal and the ending is obvious by the halfway mark.  But the setting is anything but normal. It’s…well…weird.  It’s clear early on that everything in the film is within one game or another, so anything can happen. Some things are subtle, like everyone and everything being labeled, while others, like mutated lizards and living game controllers, mock anyone thinking that reality still has meaning.

Jude Law plays the floundering sidekick better than I would have expected. Jennifer Jason Leigh, the princess of edgy cinema, is right on the money, as she so often is, as the exocentric, introverted, carnal game developer. Of course her lust isn’t for human flesh, but for the pulsing game controller. And Willem Dafoe puts in an excellent, twisted performance (see, now I’m trying to not say “weird”) as Gas, the gas station attendant; what else would you expect the guy at the gas station to be named? But this is a Cronenberg film, and even the best actor is swamped under his runaway symbolism. Luckily, it’s damn entertaining symbolism.

This is the most sexual movie I can recall that has no sex in it, at least with any of the normal human parts. Humans are fitted with bioports in their lower backs.  Games are accessed by thrusting a fleshy umbycord into the port’s hole. Nothing sexual there. Ted doesn’t have a port, so must have one implanted by bending over as a gleeful Dafoe shoves a large tube into him. Hmmmm. Then, Allegra, wanting to jack in, sprays WD-40 on his port because new ones are often tight.  There’s also quite a bit of lubing and fingering of these ports. All of this has a marvelous effect on the viewers libido as its like watching porn without genitals. Remember that word I was using so often before. Do you see why I was?

There’s multiple themes at work here, including the problems with devotion, geek culture, and commercialism (the video game is repeatedly called eXistenz by Antenna). But the blurring of fantasy and reality is the main point. The odd thing is the movie doesn’t make it clear if we are supposed to keep them clearly separated or to understand that there really is no distinction. More than any definite statement, it feels like Cronenberg is just taking out the concepts and playing with them. As Allegra says “You have to play eXistenZ to know why you’re playing.” And then points out that is just like life.

eXistenZ suffers more from the glut of VR films than the others. Remove the VR element from The Matrix and you still have an action film. The Thirteenth Floor would still be a mystery. And the 1990’s Total Recall would still have violence. But take away the VR element from eXistenZ and there’s nothing left. Everything is wrapped up in the concept of uncertain realities, and that is no longer an exciting new idea.

 Cyberpunk, Reviews Tagged with:
Oct 111998
 
five reels

The Ring (2001)

Anyone who watches a strange videotape dies one week later.  A reporter (Naomi Watts/Matsushima Nanako/Shin Eun-Kyung) and her ex search for the origins of the tape, and how to stop the curse before it kills them and their child .

Horror films are rarely actually frightening.  They can be sickening, repulsive, suspenseful, exciting, and funny, but rarely scary.  Oh, some can startle, but that’s a cheap thrill (if thrill at all) that is gone as quickly as it came.  Fright lasts longer.  It builds, putting your nerves on end and causing your hair to standup, and stay that way.  I am a hard case, as few people are scared less often than I am by movies.  Only three have done it, and none in the last twenty years.  The Ring didn’t change that, but it came close.  For lack of a better word, I’ll say it made me apprehensive and it felt creepy (I don’t want to downplay the more adrenalin-filled effects of those other 3 films—you’ll just have to read my reviews to find what they are).  If you are more easily frightened, then The Ring should send you over the edge.  For nine-tenths of the film, it follows the haunting standard, with our heroes, who had nothing to do with the original event, trying to unlock the secret in order to end the ghostly assaults.  It does this excellently, and I was ready to label this a successful, “creepy” picture, but then it all changes.  Its ending is something new, and contains the most chilling scene in any horror film.


four reels

 

Ringu (1998)

Ringu is the Japanese original (not really the original as there was a TV version first).  It was so successful with its stylish terror that it started a movement known as J-Horror (including sequels and prequels to Ringu, Dark Water and the Ju-On series).  These films are highly atmospheric, seldom explain everything, and not for the faint of heart.  They have been a welcome source of inspiration for Hollywood which is remaking many of them.  The Ring changed little of Ringu besides putting it in English and raising the production values a bit.  It is the same excellent story.  Which is better?  Well, as I don’t speak Japanese, that’s hard to say.  I can’t tell if the dialog in the original is clever or emotional as sub-titles do not give me the nuances that a native speaker would get.  If I was Japanese, I would switch my ratings.  Ignoring language, a silly thing to do with a talking picture, I’d give the edge to The Ring.  One difference between the films is in the character of the ex-husband/boyfriend.  In The Ring he is a video expert, which is one of the reasons he’s brought into the mystery.  In Ringu he’s asked to help because he is psychic.  This adds something else I have to suspend my disbelief about, and pulls me away from the story as it is much harder to picture myself in the situation (you see, none of my friends can read minds).  His powers are there just to speed the plot.  Instead of spending time questioning people and looking through files, the ex just grabs people and gets the answers from their mind.  The detective work is more satisfying.  Either way, these are movies to see.


two reels

 

The Ring Virus (1999)

Ring Virus is the English name given to the Korean version.  It varies more from Ringu than The Ring did, but still tells a good tale.  I would rate it higher if the others didn’t exist as better choices.  Even if I understood Korean, I would suggest one of the others first.  Ring Virus increases the psychic activity of our heroes (which leads to statements like “The tape was made telekinetically; I can feel it.”).  The main character’s associate is neither an ex-husband nor ex-boyfriend, and may have no connection to her at all; it is unclear.  His behavior is inexplicable at times, no matter what he is.  There’s a subplot dealing with one of the characters being a hermaphrodite, but it is not explored enough to be interesting.  Less care has been shown with the English sub-titles than in Ringu and spelling errors and twisted grammar abound.  If you view the DVD, be sure to switch the audio track to Korean (there is no English) as it defaults to the Chinese dubbed track, which was even more amateurishly done than the sub-titles.