Pokémon 3: The Movie

Plot: Professor Hale is a research scientist who is looking for the elusive Pokemon called Unown. But during his discovery Hale is trapped in a dimension of Unown leading his daughter Molly all alone. Molly finds a box of tablets containing Unown images and unknowingly summons the Unown who make her wishes come true, including turning her house into a crystal castle and create Entei to represent her father. When one of Molly's wishes includes Entei kidnapping Ash's mother so that she can be Molly's mother, Ash and his friends must find a way to rescue both Ash's mother and Molly from the spell of the Unown.


So now we come to what is apparently the very last Pokemon movie that was released with a nationwide release by Warner Brothers. For a final film before they only started to release it in limited theaters, it's my understanding that some people thought this was the best one of the first three films and thought it was a major bummer that this was the one that made the least amount of money. For me personally I still like the second one the best so far, but I do see why people think this movie is particularly good. Not to the point where I like it quite as much, but I can understand why.

The main reason why this one is considered the best of the first three is because it has a stronger narrative. There's a lot of detailed explanation as to why all this has happened and there's a reason why Ash is connected to this as opposed to how he got mixed up with what was happening with Mewtwo or Lugia and the legendary birds in the previous films. We also have a stronger understanding how this fake Entei has appeared and how he has developed a strong connection with Molly. This is something I particularly like given that when you get down to it, it's a very strange concept. I learned the story for this film from bunch of kids back when it was starting to come out in theaters, and I never saw it around that time because again the first movie was the only one that I saw when I was little. So I think there was a part of me even back then that noticed that when really get down to it the idea of a little girl having this big powerful Pokemon, Entei as her father and then forcing Ash's mom to be her mom is a very odd concept. The story in general is not as epic as the previous film, but to be fair, maybe it's for the best that they focused on just giving us some big adventures without the whole world being at stake.After all, how can you really top something like the fate of the world the way Pokemon 2000 did.

But again they were very clever in having it all fit in. developing its no way where it makes sense and if nothing else make the relationship between the girl and Entei very strong. But it's not without at least a couple of noticeable flaws. For example, we never find out more about the Molly's mom who has gone missing. It's just thrown in there and the focus is left to just the part where her dad goes missing thus leading to the events of the film. And I know that's the point; that this is really about Molly and Entei and how he's sent as a surrogate of her father. But I can't help but feel a little annoyed that we never got any details about the fact that her mom was gone there was no connection to it when I feel like there should there been. Like wouldn't it have made more sense if Molly's mother was also researching on Unown and  disappeared some time prior before her dad does? Because she really disappeared without no explanation and the whole matter about her was resolved what was just as little information. Also maybe I missed something, but there doesn't seem to have been any real motivation whatsoever for the Unowns to give Molly this world and cause all this chaos. It's kind of like they just happen to decide to give her all this power just because she just happened to summon them. However there is a good argument that her emotions also make her technically a very complex antagonist. She's not doing this to be evil, she's doing this because she's lonely and has lost so much and is all alone and the audience can completely understand that. But there's also something of a moral that is kind of thrown in at the very end that has to do with her desire to become a Pokemon trainer and a have friends which is nice but would have made more sense if it was brought up prior. Both of those wants were thrown is during the last third because her real want was her father. Also one thing that really bugs me early on is the fact that apparently Molly and Ash have met before when they were both very little. This backs up how they were smart to give a connection between Ash and the conflit, but if that's the case, shouldn't she be around the same age as Ash? Because they kind of implied that she really should have.


One big Improvement from both the first two films is the action. The Pokemon battles in the movie are pretty awesome to watch. I'm not be a kid anymore, but the young child who loved pokemon that's still inside me really enjoys watching the battle from the beginning, the fight between Brock and Misty against Molly, and Entei vs. Charizard. In fact, it is pretty cool that Ash's Charizard decided to come in and help out. All and all, the action really showed how much the technology and animation improved since the last two films.

The characters as usual are pretty enjoyable. It's nice to see Ash with his original companions again for the most part even if I have grown out of them. But Team Rocket were completely useless in this movie. They never did a single thing in his films apart from just following Ash and observing the situation. Granted they mostly did that in the first movie too, but at least we got a little bit of exposition out of them exploring Mewtwo's castle. But here, they just observe and make some pretty bad puns.


And that's my review for Pokemon 3: The Movie. It's not as epic has its predecessors and there are some considerable problems with the plot to me personally. But the setup is much stronger and the action and animation has improved greatly and just gives us an adventure that's not as big but still a lot of fun. The second one is still my favorite so far, but this is good enough to be recognized as an okay threequel. 

Rating 65%

The Angry Birds Movie (2016)

It really is ridiculous how big Angry Birds has gotten over the years.

Plot: Red is a flightless bird that lives in Bird Island where other flightless birds live happy-go-lucky lives. Red however is very angry and cynical and thus is forced by the community to take anger management class. The island is later visited by pigs who want to make peace with the birds and everyone but Red believes them. So it's up to Red and his two friends Chuck and Bomb to figure out what the pigs are really up to.

When I went to see this film, I came with the hopes that it could be not great but harmless. When I left the theater afterwords however I was right about it being not great... but surprisingly not so much with it being harmless.

Before I get to the bad stuff, I do have to reluctantly point out that the animation is great. The designs of the characters where distinct, some of the comedic facial expressions where good, and you can really notice the detail they put into the feathers of each and every bird. No matter how much I dislike the movie in the long run, I can't write this review without admitting that the animation is definitely a plus for it no matter how much I don't want to.

With the one definite positive out of the way however, you can probably figure out just from reading the plot paragraph to this review that the story is not very original. Chances are, you have a good idea what happens almost from beginning to end. The characters are also so bland that you know that you've seen them before in other films even if you can't think of where. On the one hand, you might not even care because all you want to see is the birds fighting the pigs just like in the app except its on the big screen and you can care less about the story or the characters. This is fine in that there really is so much you can do given such a simple yet odd story for a game on your smart phone. But on the other hand, the action that you're expecting doesn't come until the climax of the movie, and so you are left watching a story that has been done many times before with characters you have seen just as many times if not more. The only character that was enjoyable in anyway was Terrace, and he mostly just stood still and growled with a stern frown on his face.    

What bothered me the most in this movie was the humor. Granted, I will admit that there were some jokes that at least made me briefly chuckle with my mouth closed and once in a very long while I'll laugh a little bit. But the majority of the humor ranged from being bland and unamusing to surprisingly inappropriate. There is an uncomfortable amount of sex jokes in this movie that are not only bad, but undeniably direct. There's even a moment when Chuck plainly suggests that he and the female birds "get it on" while doing rapid pelvic thrusts. I couldn't believe that I was watching this. Aren't kids expected to watch this movie?

And that's my review for Angry Birds. If you are a big fan of the app and just want to see birds knocking down buildings and TNT blowing up and whatnot, you'll get it, it's just not there until the very last 20 minutes or so of the film. But aside from that, unless you enjoy mindless sex jokes and care less about the story or characters even though they take the majority of the film, this is another video game film that you should pass on.

Rating: 25%   

Captain America: Civil War

Plot: After Scarlett Witch accidentally kills some people in Lagos while trying to stop the mercenary Crossbones, the United Nations decide to pass the Sokovia Accords which establishes a UN panel to oversee and control the Avengers. Tony Stark thinks that agreeing to the accords is the right thing to do after creating Ultron, but Steve Rogers believes that they will be sacrificing their freedom if they sign it. So the team is divided and Captain America and the super heroes on his side are now fugitives who have to fight their own friends while Captain America is also trying to clear up the Winter Soldier's name.

The Civil War comic was the story that got me into liking Captain America before the first Captain America film was coming out. So like many, I had high hopes with how they were going to adapt Civil War and put it one the big screen. In the end, Captain America: Civil War was almost everything I hoped for and more. I say almost because there are changers here and that if you are a fan of the book, you should see this movie with the mindset of knowing that this doesn't tell the story the exact same way. But the changes they make are incredibly smart.

One big concern that many fans were concerned about was how they were going to set up the event of the civil war. Because in the book, one feature of joining the government/Iron Man's side included publicly revealing your secret identity as part of earning people's trust. So fans where worried about how they were going to do that when most of the heroes in the MCU already have their identities revealed, thus making that aspect of the accords redundant in the long run. But the makers of the film apparently knew that and decided that the focus should rightfully stay on the idea of The Avengers being controlled and not one revealing secret identities which was a wise move. And what makes both sides of the argument regarding the Sokovia Accords is that they both have pros and cons. The majority of us may root for Captain America's side more, but the film makes it clear that both Captain America and Iron Man have very good points in their sides of the argument, but at the same time neither side is perfect. Both arguments have flaws that lead to serious consequences, and they made that clear beautifully.

The characters are still very strong. They gave us a good introduction of both Black Panther and Spider-Man. Spider-Man in particular - while not in the film for very long, was so fun to watch. I look forward to seeing more of Tom Holland as both Peter Parker and Spider-Man. But with that said, I do hope that they develop him to have a serious side as well. Because Spider-Man is a both funny and serious character and so far they have only given us half of that so far. So until they show us that much with Holland - as much as people are going to strongly disagree with me, I'm still going to say that Andrew Garfield is the best Spider-Man we have. I also enjoy how they have been developing the relationships between the superheroes. I like that they were slowly developing a relationship between Vision and Scarlett Witch. The conflict between Iron Man and Captain America is very clear and strong. But I think one of the most powerful moments in the film was around the first third when something tragic happens to Captain America. It leads him to an empty church with Black Widow where at the end of the scene, she hugs him for comfort. The event is emotional in of itself, but this shows the fact that we've gone so far that their relationship has become so strong that she would do that even thought they have started to become enemies. It really reflects how much Marvel and Disney has done with these characters that we've come to love so much over the past few years and it's wonderful.

If there is a problem that I'm sure some comic book readers will have, it probably would be that there is only one scene of two groups of superheroes fighting each other. There are several other fights over the course of the film, but there's only one giant battle between the superheroes. But I think that is really a nitpick in about the same way that the lack of time with the Winter Soldier in the last film was a nitpick. You may have expected to see it throughout the majority of the film, but you're fine that it isn't there as much because that's not what the real focus is. The focus is the dilemma that these characters are going through and the development you get from all of them. Plus, keep in mind that even though it says Civil War, this is still Captain America's story above all else. Besides, the actions scene are still incredibly fun. Whether it's the big battle that everyone wanted to see or any of the other fights and chases we get throughout the film, we still get a great collection of well thought out action with creative choreography, and a good amount of wit. And it's worth it to have at least one major battle between all of these superheroes because they take complete advantage of what they have. It is a marvel (pardon the pun) to see all of these personalities and powers clash together and give us amazing one on one fights. Hawkeye versus Black Panther, Ant Man versus Black Widow - heck, even Captain America fighting and Spider-man - two of my favorite characters of all time fought against each other. And what makes these fights so strong is that we've become emotionally attached to most of these characters for so long that we sincerely care about the fact that close friends like Hawkeye and Black Widow are fighting each other. It may stink that we only get one battle like this, but they did their darnest to give us exactly what we wanted.

If I had one problem with the film that is half a nitpick and half a real problem, it would have be Zemo as the villain. It's not that he is nothing like the comic book character apart from the name (though given that this makes it the second time that Marvel and Disney has done this on a threequel with the first being Iron Man 3, should we be worried about Thor: Ragnarok and Infinity War in that regard?), but I thought his motivation was corny to say the least. Other people have already stated that he didn't really need to be in the film in the first place, and generally speaking they are right. What made the story of the book so good and what made it so exciting that it was going to appear on the big screen is that there are no real villains because, like I said before, both sides of the argument have their pros and cons. Thus you can easily make the argument that Zemo wasn't very important to the plot and if they removed him from the film, there wouldn't be that much of a loss. But at the same time, he technically was still a good villain. He never fought against the superheroes, but he never had to. His plans involved causing serious emotional harm against the protagonists rather than trying to cause physical harm, and ultimately his plans were very effective.

And that's my review for Captain America: Civil War. Even with the problem with putting Zemo into the mix, we still get a smart, well thought out adaptation of the book with clever changes, strong characters and character relationships, and terrific action that will leave you perfectly satisfied. I may give this film a slightly lower rating then I did for The Winter Soldier because of Zemo, but it's still a fulfilling threequel that you should go see if you haven't seen it already.

Rating: 90%       

Zootopia (2016)

Ladies and Gentleman, here's my 650th review!... sorry that this is almost two months late. I've been pretty busy these days.

Plot: Judy is a rabbit who dreams of growing up to be a police officer in the city of Zootopia. She completes her goal, but is excluded from handling the top-priority cases because of her species. She's put on parking duty where she meets a fox who is a con artist named Nick. Eventually, Judy takes an oppertunity to show her potential by volunteering to look for a missing otter. So after blackmailing Nick to help her, the two go on a quest to find this otter within 48 hours or else Judy has to leave the force. But along the way, Judy and Nick begin to notice some carnivores go on rampage. 


By now you have heard but this is another terrific animated Disney film, and...yeah it really is. The first Disney theatrical animated movies starting nothing but anime characters stove Robin Hood it's not only good, it may be the best movie they have made in years.

First off, the animation and the world that they created are wonderful. The design and movement of the animals are pitch perfect. We see these animals act like actual animals. Judy is constantly twitching her nose,  wolves are jumping at anything, sloths are super slow and they take advantage of all of it. Zootopoa itself is also very inventive. It's designed so that it contains a lot of habitats for so many different kinds of animals, and a lot of the specific locations in the city are really clever. I wont go into a whole lot of detail in describing the creativity of Zootopia, but it definitely is a creative that I think Walt Disney himself would be very proud of.

The humor in this movie is terrific. Just like with Marvel and Star Wars, Disney has upgraded their humor in a way that was ever thought possible. I just wish I knew how Disney figured out how to up their game with their comedy over the past few years, because when this film is funny it's really freaking funny. The jokes with the wolves and the sloths were especially hilarious. I saw this movie with my brothers Tommy and Jonathan and my future sister-in-law Danae, and we all couldn't stop ourselves from quoting the jokes that they pulled on the journey home from seeing the movie.

Characters are also a ton of fun and very memorable. I liked JK Simmons as the mayor, Nick was fun, but my favorite character out of all them I think would have to be Judy. I enjoyed how she was so smart and determined to being a police officer. The "never giving up" trait is really cliche, but it holds up up with character. When we were watching her train her way to become a police officer there was a part of me that was thinking "go bunny, go". Even more so when she tried to be optimistic about her duties on her first day as a police officer. The main villain - while not giving anything away, was a somewhat smart villain. I would be lying if I said I didn't roll my eyes when we got the twist as to who the villain was, when it was revealed. But the same time the more I thought about it afterwords, I realized that the villain's motivation made sense and it was fitting with the story.

Speaking of the story, it might be the smartest part of the entire movie. Not only did it bring new life to the cliche of the buddy cop story, but the plot line of  carnivores going on a rampage address the situation of social issues real life. Yeah really think about that. Disney somehow found a way to smartly and maturely address social issues but  with talking animals that act like humans. And it really works.

There was one thing that both myself and my family had a problem with - and this is really just a nitpick, it would be how the pop star, Gazelle and her tiger dancers are all wearing sexy outfits. I know they're animals and everything, but the way Gazelle was wearing this revealing outfit on top of her tiger dancers being these big buff guys wearing shorts but no shirts just make it feel a little uncomfortable. But again it's a total total total nitpick. Besides, she also gave us the song Try Everything which is surprisingly a very fun song. You'd think that because it's a pop song from an artist you have never heard of, it would be bland and forgettable like those pop songs from A Peanuts Movie. But somehow Try Everything stands out very well.

And that's my review for Zootopia. The world is creative, the animation is great, the characters are lovable, the story is arguably the smartest one Disney has ever made, it's a ton. If you have not seen it yet, definitely find a good showtime at a theater near you and take a look.

Rating: 95%

Meet The Mormons (2014)

I found  this movie in the DVD section in my local library and frankly went "Eh, why not? This could be interesting." With that said however, I want to be made very clear about the contents to this review. I am a Christian who believes that Mormonism is not a form of Christianity like some Mormons claim it to be. But at the same time, I want to try to understand Mormonism despite how hard it is to do so even after reading my own copy of the Book of Mormon (I bumped into a couple of Mormon missionaries in my neighborhood a couple years back and after a small discussion I agreed to take one of their books and take a look at it). So when I borrowed this film from the library, I did so out of hope for getting a slightly better understanding of Mormons and their beliefs and (judging from the cover) get a good idea of how it impacts people globally. Bottom line, I'm reviewing this movie as a documentary and NOT as a means to attack Mormonism.

The movie focuses on the lives of six individuals. A Mormon bishop in Atlantic Georgia named Jermaine, the head football coach at the United States Naval Academy named Ken, a MMA fighter from Costa Rica named Carolina, the country director for Choice Humanitarian in Nepal, Bishnu, Gail Halvorsen a.k.a. The Candy Bomber, and a missionary's mother named Dawn. Every person in that order basically talk about their lives and what they do and only occasionally discuss their beliefs. And sadly, that's about it.The film contributes nothing that we may not have already known about Mormonism in the long run. For the most part, it's just showing how wonderful life is for these six specific Mormons and their friends and family. For this reason, a lot of critics - and I have to agree, see this movie as nothing but propaganda more than it is an actual documentary that tackles a subject. And it's a real shame because the movie starts out making you believe that it will talk about some controversial matters about Mormonism. It starts off with a woman addressing the fact that a lot of people don't really understand what it means to be Mormon and then interviews people in New York asking about what they know about Mormonism and most of their answers have to do with the controversial subjects such as having multiple wives or Mormonism's attitude towards black people. So I automatically believed that it will discuss a little bit about those specific subjects about Mormonism while they are showing us the lives of these six individual Mormons. But instead of  tackling any of it, it just shows how wonderful the lies are for these six people thus making it come off an nothing more than propaganda. When they do talk about their beliefs, they only talk about things that are from the Bible and nothing about what is in the Book of Mormon. So they make it appear that Mormonism is a form of Christianity without explaining how the Bible is in any way connected to the Book of Mormon.

The producer of the film did see the criticism that was made when the film came out and said "Most reviewers wanted the movie to be controversial, but we wanted to tell stories about those who make up our base." Now if this is what they really wanted to make and this is something they are happy with, good for them. Unfortunately, that does nothing to help the strength of the movie or help people be in anyway interested in Mormonism. What I understand from Mormonism apart from what I understand from the book generally comes from an episode of South Park and at least one song from the musical The Book of Mormon. So when something like this is being made from actual Mormons, I for one wanted to hear a little more about their beliefs. In fact two of the people they're interviewing, Carolina and Bishnu used to be Christians before they became Mormans. Well... okay, care to enlighten me why?  All they did was mention how Carolina was raised Catholic and Bishnu became a Christian before a couple of Mormon missionaries came to his town and convinced him to become a Mormon and that's it. I really dislike that they don't go into more detail, because contrary to belief a Christian like me might be a tiny bit interested in how and/or why a fellow brother and/or sister in Jesus would take this particular step in their beliefs. The only part where someone in the film said something that was remotely different than what I believe in is when the football coach, Ken talked about how a Mormon bishop told him that his blessings from God depend on whether or not he can control his temper. But aside from that, it's nothing but the same things I believe in but worded a little differently.

The most interesting part of the movie by far was Gail as The Candy Bomber. His story about how he created the Candy Berlin Drop was amazing. It was really touching what was happening in Berlin at that time and what pilots like him were doing to try to help the people in the city. It was especially touching when Gail talked about this one child who asked him not to not give up and assured him that someday they will pull though. Then to hear him come up with the idea of dropping off candy for children which apparently gave them a lot of hope was great. However not even then, not much was said about his faith as a Mormon apart from claiming that's the Holy Spirit told them to go to meet those kids. Honestly it was interesting as a piece of history rather than something educational about Mormonism or Mormons.

And that's my review for Meet The Mormons. I may have no interest becoming a Mormon in any way whatsoever. But when movies are made by Mormons who are talking about themselves, in some way or another I really want my understanding of their religion to be challenged. I want to be enlightened in some way. I want to see them at least least try to help me understand better what in the world do they truly deeply believe in. But as it is, it's mostly nothing but showing off how great life is for these 6 specific Mormons, make it come out more as propaganda rather than something to be considered as a documentary. The only interesting thing about it is again the story of Gail becoming the Candy Bomber, but even then you could just look him up online and get the same experience of how cool his story is. If you are a Mormon and you just want to see how your  religion has impacted other people, you'll get your fill here. But aside from that, this is one documentary that is definitely a skip.

Rating 20%

The Jungle Book (2016)

Plot : Mowgli is a man-cub raised by a pack of wolves in the jungle who tries to learn the ways of the wolf. But when the tiger Sher Kahn comes to the jungle and threatens the pack of wolves for Mowgli's life, Mowgli must venture through the jungle to a man village for his safety. Along the way, he comes across different animals including Kaa the Python, Baloo the Bear and King Louie and his army of monkeys.

This was a smart, well thought of movie. It fully succeeds where Maleficent failed and Cinderella succeeded to an extent in creating a remake of the Disney classic that updates the adaptation to its fullest potential. In fact, it updated its elements so well that many people are saying - and after much thought I am reluctantly agreeing, that this may be better then the animated one. Yes, you read that right. This live-action adaptation of one of Disney's animated classics is better then its predecessor. Is everything done better? No. But the changes are thought out and delivered so well that the story, characters and the world that they live in are actually stronger than the original.

The story is basically the same but with clever additions and subtractions. Shere Kahn has a better explained motivation as to why he wants to kill Mowgli, there's more build up to the dangers of fire or "the red flower", it's not a musical, although two of the songs are played which I will discuss later, and it adds elements from the book that where not in the animated film such as how elephants are highly respected in the jungle. They also strongly establish how dangerous the jungle is. There are moments in the movie that display how the jungle is a place where death is waiting to happen in every corner. Just watching something like an avalanche heading straight toward Mowgli or see the shredded skin of Kaa or watch one of King Louis' giant arms come out of the shadow set the record straight that the danger that this boy is facing is very real whether he realizes it or not. The film also gave Mowgli a serious moral dilemma that I wont give away but I will say helped create a very clever climax.    

As much as I love the animated film, the characters are stronger in this version. Shere Kahn for example has a more powerful and intimidating presence. The Shere Kahn in the animated film did little, but he was a menacing villain anyway because there was so much build up to him. He was powerful, ruthless and deadly and everybody but Mowgli knew it and where intimidated because of it. But in this version, he does show off his great strength before we're even a third or so into the movie and it is intimidating. It's a plain but effective example of  the power of show don't tell. While Bill Murray as Baloo isn't quite as fun as it was with Phil Harris he still fit the role perfectly and was amusing watch. I never quite understood why Scarlett Johansson was cast as Kaa, but she fit the role alright for the small amount of running time she had. Christopher Walken I think worked very well in voicing King Louie much to the surprise of my brother, Johnathan. And surprisingly the kid that plays Mowgli... is really good. In fact what made him really credible to me was when I watched Jeremy Jahns' review for the movie and he pointed out that the kid is acting with nothing but CGI around him. The fact that some actors - particularly adult actors can fall flat on their face when they're acting with CGI and yet with this kid there is little to no problem whatsoever that it's that I believe that he's interacting with Baloo or the pack of wolves or any of these other animal characters that are completely computer-generated is very impressive. Speaking of interacting with the animal characters, that's another big improvement; Mowgli's relationships with them - particularly the wolves. The Wolves were only there very briefly in the animated but here they play a supporting role in the story and Mowgli's relationship with them appears more genuine than it is in the previous film.

If there is one problem with the movie that isn't necessarily bad but it's definitely the weakest part, it would have to be how they forced in the song I Want to be Like You.  The moment that they played it when Mowgli is talking to King Louie made almost no sense for two specific reasons: 1) there wasn't much of us setup for the song as opposed to when Baloo and Mowgli are singing Bear Necessities. With Bear Necessities, they set it up by discussing how Mowgli had never heard of a song before, and used that for when they do sing the song a couple of scenes later. But I Want to be Like You had little to no reason to be in this non-musical film apart from the fact that it's King Louie's song, so it  kind of felt like it came right out of nowhere. 2) It didn't  fit with the movements of King Louie.  King Louis moves very slow because he's such a giant ape, that's fine in terms of what makes the CGI so great in capturing the movements and the like ability of the animals. But by doing so, it completely missed the energy and emotion of the song.  I Want to Be Like You is a fun upbeat song and yet King Louie is very slowly moving around mostly sitting in one spot. He throws around fruit and ancient treasure during the second half, but at that point the deed was already done.


And that's my review for The Jungle Book. The animated version still has a place in my heart, but this film is such a big upgrade that it pointed out the problems with its predecessor that I never noticed before. This take on Disney's The Jungle Book took what was so beloved about the original and added more development to the story, characters, the dangers of the jungle and so on that I reluctantly have to agree that it is the better movie. I'll still watch the animated movie more than this one, but if you have not seen this film, it's worth checking out.

Rating: 90% 

Pokemon: The Movie 2000 (1999)

Plot: Lawrence III is a Pokemon collector who plans to fulfill a prophecy by capturing the three legendary bird Pokemon Molters, Zapados and Articuno so that he can capture the "Beast of the Sea," Lugia. But by capturing the bird Pokemon one by one, the power the birds have over the world's climate begins to collapse, causing weather phenomenons across the world. Meanwhile, Ash and his companions Misty and Tracy get caught in a storm and are washed ashore to an island where a festival celebrating the legend of Lugia is about to begin and Ash is selected as the festival's chosen one by he festival maiden, Melody. Melody explains that as the chosen one, Ash has to venture the legendary birds' islands, retrieve the magical orbs representing each one and take them to Shamouti's shrine where Melody has to play the festival's song, which is the song of Lugia. But along the journey, they discover Lawrence III and his evil plan and realize that Ash must now complete his quest for the orbs in order to save the world. 

My main thought about this movie - and I cannot believe I'm saying this, is that this film is actually better then the first one. Not to the extend that I personally like it better then the first movie (too many memories and all that), but when I got down to it, I realized that Pokemon 2000 - while not a great film, is the better flick. 

What could possibly make this film better? Well...the story surprisingly enough. As I said in my previous review, the first movie had a flawed story with some elements not playing out particularly well. But I think because the premise is much more simple here - in that it's a hero going on a quest to find these artifacts to save the day as opposed to Ash trying to stop Mewtwo's elaborated plan for revenge against humanity, it was easier to follow and thus I was more likely to be invested in what was happening. It also did a better job at establishing how high the stakes were. The fate of the world is at stake in both films, but the first movie -while having a darker tone, condensed the events to mostly take place at Mewtwo's fortress and the destruction of the world was explained through dialogue more then it was shown. Here, we see all of these weather phenomenons affecting the whole world and we witness how the human characters are reacting to it and all of these Pokemon are  coming together to witness the fight because they know the gravity of what is being transpired.

The main characters also get a lot more attention. While Ash and his friends did play a big part in the first movie, it was really Mewtwo's story at the end of the day. Now we have Ash, the character that the audience has been following throughout the entire show up to this point in time, be the center of attention as the hero. Even though I've grown out of the anime, there was a part of me that enjoyed Ash getting such a big role. With that said however (and I realize that this a childish nitpick, but I just can't help it), I called bull crap when Ash was unsure about being the chosen one. Sure there needs to be conflict and everything, but I can't help but think that I remember Ash as someone who takes the job to save the day without thinking. Granted, I do remember watching episodes where he doubted himself, but when it comes to something like the fate of the world, I always viewed him as someone who just goes off and recklessly tries to be the hero like he sort of did in the first movie. But, this is a nitpick that I just wanted to throw out there. The weakest of the characters however was Lawrence III. His gimmick was interesting, but the character himself was very two-dimensional. Mewtwo made a good antagonist because we saw why he developed his hate for humans and to a degree we cared about him. Lawrence III is just this greedy man determined to capture a specific Pokemon and that is it. I think he had something of a backstory that was to do with discovering this legendary Mew card, but it was all summed up in one sentence and that's all we get. No explanation as to what the card has to do with the prophecy connecting to Lugia or even why there are Pokemon cards in the anime. And just to throw it out there, I wanted to see a little more of Lugia. Why? Honestly, because I had enough hype for the Pokemon as a kid even though I never got to see the film that I feel like I didn't get enough of him when I finally did see the film. But that's just me.    

There's also a subplot between Ash, Misty and Melody that apparently (according to some people on YouTube) is the closest thing fans have to any romance between Ash and Misty. There are hints here and there in the show, but Pokemon 2000 seems to be the only thing that truly plays around the question of "will they or wont they?" A good chunk of the film focuses on Misty being jealous because of Melody kissing Ash and flirting with him. The story line was no doubt beloved by fans and I'll admit that I liked it myself just out of nostalgia, but in the end it doesn't go anywhere because Misty did eventually leave the show. So at the end of the day, this subplot is a major highlight of the movie, but it does suck that nothing else came out of it and that there will never be a girl like Misty that we would love for Ash to get together with. (*cough cough* Serena!)

The dialogue is also stronger...at least for the most part. There still are some lines that are not that great, but they are better then the dialogue from the last film. There's even a joke with Team Rocket that I found myself laughing at. It was one of those jokes where it should not have worked but the way they delivered it made it funny anyway.  

And that's my review for Pokemon: The Movie 2000. The first one has a stronger hold of my childhood, but after finally watching this movie I have to admit that because of its easier to follow plot, more focus on Ash as the protagonist and the subplot between him, Misty and Melody, this was surprisingly a decent flick. It's not great, but I had a nice time.

Rating: 70%