Pokematic Reviews a Community Theater Stage Version of The Wizard of Oz

Over the weekend I went to a local production of The Wizard of Oz, and it was pretty entertaining.

If it's not a good game or catholic, who do you call, why pokematic "hi."

Up by my parents there's a local theater troop that puts on real stage productions at a small theater in one of the neighboring cities, and my mom likes to go when there's a good show. It was something she really liked doing with my grandma, but now it's just kind of something she does for birthdays, and since mskate's birthday was recent and they were putting on a stage play adaption of The Wizard of Oz, she got tickets and invited us. So what did I think? Well, it was great.

If you've been living under a rock, The Wizard of Oz is a major movie in American culture, in part because it was one of the first color movies and it did all it could to show it off, and because it's just great. Because it's so popular, there are live theater adaptations of it, and I remember going to see a version with my grandparents back when I was either 5 or 6 at a "real off broadway" theater. (There's also a large rabbit hole of Oz related media that is largely trying to capitalize on the popularity, but that's a thing for you to handle yourself). This one wasn't quite as impressive as that one, but what do you expect from a local community theater troop. Anyway, this isn't going to be a review of the story itself and what the iconic songs are since I'm going to assume that you're familiar with it (because as I said, this is a cultural icon).

First, I was REALLY impressed with what they did with Kansas. In the movie, Kansas is shot in sepia black and white, and everything becomes color when Dorothy goes to Oz. I was kind of wondering if they would do anything to address that. Low and behold, they did. When the setting is Kansas, everyone's clothes are black and white and all the sets are black and white. That was pretty cool set designs considering that the whole "real world is boring black and white, fantastical world is exciting color" in the movie.

Second, something that I thought was really cool was the actors. In the movie, the scarecrow, the tin man, the cowardly lion, the wicked witch of the west, and the wizard are all played by the same people that Dorothy comes across in Kansas (the companions are the farm hands, the witch is the neighbor that hates Toto, and the wizard is the traveling fortuneteller), and there's like symbolism in that or something. Maybe this is just a me thing, but when I watch the movie I have to remind myself that the people Dorothy meets in Oz are the same people she knows in Kansas, in part because we don't spend a lot of time with them all things considered, and in other part because the costuming and makeup are "just that good." This being live theater though, and with some changes made to the script for the stage show, it was more obvious in a good way.

Third, there's the sets. Something that I latched onto for some reason was "the elevated set piece." Throughout the story there are things where "people are elevated," where in the play those were when Glenda came in on a bubble when Dorothy first lands, when the Wicked Witch is on top of a house and shoots some fire at the Scarecrow, when the guard to Oz is keeping the crew out, and when Dorothy is in her dungeon cell. The interesting thing with the build is there was this rolling set piece that on one side was the bubble, another was the house, 3rd side was the guard tower, and last side was the cell window, and they kind of rotated it depending on the need. There was also the house, where during the tornado there were stage hands that rotated it across the stage as other stage hands had things spin around the house in the tornado. One thing that really spoke to me was there was one time when the stage hands had to bring something out while in the emerald city when it wasn't a scene change (all the actors were still on stage), and instead of "stage hand full black" they were wearing green safety vests (because everyone wears green in the emerald city).

While on this technical topic, there's also the makeup and effects. With the companions and wicked witch, the transition between "normal human stage makeup" and "magical creature makeup" was pretty impressive. There was something about the witch when she was the neighbor that felt a little off, so I suspect she had like some kind of "quick transition fake face" since her last time as "white human" and "green witch" was pretty short. Then with the scarecrow, tin man, and lion, the jump back to normal human was pretty quick, but since it was "just take the makeup off," they might not have fully done their human makeup. There were also a lot of smoke-fog effects, so much that there was a cloud over the audience, which made me make a joke of "for the announcement of no smoking or vaping, they sure did that a lot for the show." The wizard before the reveal was also kind of neat. At the show when I was little they had a big mechanical face, but here they had the actor just talking into a camera with it being on a large video screen. Actually pretty cool. Then there was the pyrotechnic effect, where the witch shot some fire out of her broom. That was cool. Also, when Dorothy dumps a bucket of water on the witch, just like when I was little it was a bucket of large confetti.

Fourth, there were some new songs. Like, there was a song about the jitter bug making them dance until they die, and I want to say there was another in the emerald city. They weren't exactly the most memorable, but they gave more reason for the chorus to dance which is good for musical theater. They also added some things to the existing songs, like there was some stuff with "if I only had a brain" that wasn't in the original movie version. Again, nothing super memorable, but for musical theater it gave some other people things to do.

Now it's time for the real star of the show. Forget Dorothy, the witch, the scarecrow, tin man, and lion. No, the real star of this production was Toto. Toto was played by a real black toy poodle type dog. This dog was so well behaved, able to just walk with Dorothy, get carried around without any fussing, and just standing there when he needed. If this was a "broadway production" type of show I wouldn't be too impressed with a "working animal," but since this is a local troop chances are Toto was just someone in the production's pet. There were a couple of times when I think the cast had to improvise around the dog (like when the fortune teller has to shoo him away from "the fire" and then act like he was burnt), but for the most part it seemed like he hit his marks all the time.

Overall, it was a fun time. Well this has been Pokematic, signing off, and bu-bye.

PS, I also found this in the parking structure, and I couldn't help but make the joke "it's the new Sony console name." Mskate was like "I don't get it, why are you doing that" and I'm like "it's a gaming joke."

Catholiccontriversy's Review of The Faithful on FOX

 This is a series I have complex feelings on. Hello catholiccontriversy here and this lent FOX made a mini-series called "The Faithful," a 3 part series that tells the story of Abraham fathering Ishmael and Isaac, the rivalry between Esau and Jacob, and Jacob's marriage to Leah and Rachel, all told from the perspective of Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel. Episode 3 aired on Easter Sunday, episode 2 aired on Palm Sunday, and episode 1 aired the week prior. Since this was coming from secular FOX Network under the management of Disney, I went in cautious, but I was hopeful because it'd be nice to have more adaptations of the bible. Plus, Hallo was advertizing on it, and they tend to be good judges of character. Before I get into the religious analyses, I'll just go over some technical elements. The set design is great, as is the costuming. I'm not the most knowledgeable about how things were back in genesis times, but it sure felt period accurate. The acting is also really good, I believed the emotions everyone had, which was accented with the lighting and cinematography. A lot of people like to complain about conservative media being poor technical quality, but this was high technical quality. OK, now for the religious analysis.

One thing that I like is this covers passages and stories that are not very commonly told (at least in the Catholic church). I know the binding of Isaac really well since it's part of the readings every year, but we never talk about Ishmael or Esau or Jacob, so that's pretty cool. On that note, they don't go into great detail of the binding of Isaac, probably because it is so well known. They also do a really good job with "portraying God" by making Him a force that is felt but not seen. They also "reasonably expand"  on the passages, like with showing how Rachel is a shepherdess and what that would mean, and what 7 years of service to Jacob is, and what the strong emotions were like and what would draw them to have those emotions (instead of a single line of "but Leah was hated" it expanded on why Leah was hated). In a way, it kind of reminds me of Veggie Tales and how they would expand on stories. It's also not super graphic, a strong TV-PG, which makes it approachable.

Now for what makes me hesitant to say "this is great," and that is how it handles Abraham and Jacob fathering children. Prior to this my general knowledge of Abraham's children was "Sarah was infertile, and it was after much prayer and faith was Sarah able to bear Isaac." I had read all of Genesis so I know I heard about Hagar and Ishmael at least once, but it wasn't something that "got a lot of attention" and I kind of forgot about. Same thing with Jacob and his marriage to Leah and Rachel, I read it with a full reading of Genesis but I kind of forgot about it. When the show was talking about Sarah having Abraham father his child with Hagar, and how they "kept trying to Sarah's jealous displeasure," I'm like "what? I need to verify this because this feels kind of wrong." I look it up and yeah, I had just forgotten about Hagar and Ishmael. The same thing with Jacob and the deception into consummating Leah instead of Rachel and so being married to her first, and then the jealous rivalry between Leah and Rachel in their competition for Jacob's love, with arguing over who Jacob will "have relations with" that night. So the complexity comes from how "highly implicit" it is, especially when compared to how the translation I reread handled it. In the ESV copy I reread when it covers Abraham fathering Ishmael with Hagar, it basically just says "and so Abraham went into Hagar and she bore a son," it wasn't "and so for months Abraham went to Hagar's tent to lay with her for months until she was with child. Even though it was Sarah's idea it made her upset and jealous." It's not necessarily implausible since this is how children come into the world except for that one time, and it would give reason for Sarah's frustration with Hagar, but it just felt a little off. Same thing with Jacob accidentally marrying Leah and fathering many children with Leah even though his heart is for Rachel. Again, the ESV basically translates the passage as "but there was a plot and Jacob went into Leah that night, and when he awoke he was with Leah," not "and there was a great plot to have Jacob bed Leah, the deception was so strong that he didn't realize he was bedding Rachel's sister" as was shown in The Faithful. Likewise, when covering Jacob fathering children with Leah, it just says "Jacob went into Leah, and she bore [this son], which made Rachel jealous," not the "and after lying with Leah and bearing a son, he promised Rachel he would lay with her again since his heat was for Rachel, but then with the birth of Reuben he became closer to Leah, and they had a bitter rivalry over who Jacob would lay with" as was shown in the series. It's not like this is implausible either, it kind of is "what needs to happen to father children" and would explain what went on and why Joseph is Jacob's favorite son, but it seemed to "linger more than what was really necessary" and just felt off.

I don't really know about this one. This definitely isn't The Star where it rewrites major biblical stories and motivations. The 2nd episode when it was just Esau and Jacob and there isn't any "who is lying with who" is completely unobjectionable and fully covers the stories with respect, as does everything else in the other episodes, so it definitely seems like the creators have reverence for the source material and wanted to tell those stories. It also inspired me to reread these passages of Genesis to "fact check" it, and it's hard to make "it inspired me to read my bible" a bad thing. Then while these passages are "bad actions," I had to remind myself "this is before God gave Moses all the rules, these guys were trying their best but still fell to bad things of the era, and the fact that they had problems after doing these things was foreshadowing to the laws of Moses." Also, even though they do "linger on things," this is still a PG show and doesn't get too crazy. However, it just feels kind of off. I recommend reading Genesis 16 and 29-30 as a companion to episode 1 and 3, respectively. It is a pretty good series, just prepare yourself that this is not necessarily "squeaky clean." This has been catholiccontriversy, signing off, and may God bless you.

What makes Gatsby Great?

Related Mona Lisa Smile.

Oh, and here's the notes that I wrote before I made the video. I figured I'd leave them here as a little behind the scenes with some alternative thoughts.

What makes Gatsby great? I read the book in highschool and remember hating it, but that could just be that my teacher was bad and I struggle with reading comprehension (I get more interested by the fibers in the paper). We watched the movie adaptation and I still didn't like it, but maybe that's just because I watched it just after reading the book and had a sour taste (and maybe the movie just wasn't that good). Well I'm like 15 years separated from the class and I just watched the Leonardo DiCaprio version with Toby Maguire and modern editing and cinematography, so if anything should speak to me it's this. And it doesn't.

Why is this story so important? Why is this studied in high school and held up as a great American novel? Why are there 3 different movie adaptations of it? Why is there an 8 hour play where someone just reads The Great Gatsby out loud while things happen in the background?

What is the story? It's the roaring 20s, and prohibition had just ended. There's a stock broker named Nick Carroway who recently moved to the "new money" part of long island. His neighbor is a mysterious man named Jay Gatsby who got his money in mysterious ways. He's also related to a woman named Daisy who married into "old money" and lives across the lake where "old money" lives. The first part of the story is Nick getting to know Gatsby, the next part is Nick introducing Daisy to Gatsby. The last part is a love triangle with Gatsby, Daisy, and Daisy's husband since Daisy and Gatsby were an item before the war, with what I think is some sort of commentary on wealth segregation and the "legitimacy of how one makes their money" and how elites think themselves better than others even if they have the same wealth. And maybe there's some sort of lesson about how even with all the money in the world you can't buy love, or something like that.

But why is this "so important." The conflict is "celebrity drama," rich people cheating on each other and trying to out do each other. That's tabloid nonsense. I thought TMZ and Us Weekly were "low class dribble." What separates the story of Jay Gatsby and Daisy from Brad Pitt and Angelena Joelie or Kim Kardation and Kanyay West? As far as I can tell, NOTHING! It's not like this was a P Diddy or Amber Heard situation where there was major criminal activity, it's gossip nonsense. "Oh but it's set in the 1920s," and it was written in the 1920s, which means that it would be like if someone wrote a book about a fictional Kim Kardation type person.

Then it's like, what's the big deal about Gatsby. Am I supposed to feel bad that Daisy doesn't return his affection, or that she does but they can't? Daisy's a married woman, that's kind of how "unavailable" works. "She was supposed to wait but she didn't, and now he wants a second chance," bullet dodged. If she was worth it she would have waited for you, instead of marrying the first rich guy who asked. "She didn't know if Gatsby was coming home," was she told he died? I don't remember, if they said that it was once "because that wasn't important." If she did think he died, well she moved on and so should he. "But it's a loveless marriage," too bad, she's married. Am I supposed to dislike Gatsby because he's a scumbag who literally covets his neighbor's wife? OK, but the books sure does a lot to make him likable.

"But it's a commentary on celebrity worship and elitism." OK sure, but why does that matter to me? I have no interest in celebrity gossip. Like, none at all. I don't need a book to tell me it's nonsense. I also grew up in a middle middle class neighborhood where no one was trying to outdo each other, my grandparents lived in low income housing and my other grandparents lived in a farm community, and I live in a rural suburb surrounded by farm land and industrial parks. No one is elitist by me, I have zero frame of reference for this. Rich people are just rich people as far as I'm concerned, and I have no interest in them.

"But the symbolism." What symbols? Gatsby likes the green light because it's a sign of Daisy. It's decent foreshadowing, I guess, but it's not like it's some major thing that needs to be debated and studied. He calls everyone "old sport" to make himself sound fancy in the 1920s. It's just slang of the time. Why did my grandma call everyone sweetheart? It wasn't because she had some kind of cannibal tendencies, it's just something someone that grew up in the 30s and 40s says. "The All Seeing billboard that foreshadows them getting caught," or whatever it was supposed to mean, fine but why do I care? "But all the things Gatsby does to fake it until he makes it," once again, it's just tabloid nonsense.

If I'm being truly honest as a critic, it's a very mid story. It's not exactly terrible, but it's also not great. I watched it while doing busy work, it "filled the silence" like Super Fast, Earnest Goes to Camp, Demoted, and other "good enough" movies. I don't hate it like Catcher in the Rye, but that's because there's not really anything to hate. Which also means that there's not really anything to love. Why oh why is this considered "high art." Is it because there just wasn't anything like it at the time? Well, we have real life examples now with the 24 hour celebrity news cycle. Is it because prohibition and ill gotten money? Surely there are stories that tell that more and have more focus than "hey, I wonder how this Gatsby got his money."

A Catholic's Analysis of Dear Santa (A Blasphemous Christmas Movie?)

*Sigh* well this is a movie I have thoughts on. Hello catholiccontriversy here and while scrolling through paramount plus I came across a movie called "Dear Santa," "a movie about a kid who writes a letter to Santa and a spelling error causes a crazy mix-up" according to the description. I've heard the joke about "dyslexic kid writes a letter to Satan on accident," I knew what this was going to be from the set-up, and I had some kind of calling to analyze this. If you're new here, don't think I'm one of those "Harry Potter is the work of the devil" people (I've actually defended it on multiple occasions), nor am I one of those "to show evil is evil" kind of people (to know what to be on guard against one first must know what to even look for), but "strait up Satan" is not something to be taken lightly since one of his tricks is he makes you think he's nothing to be worried about, and "a dark comedy about a boy and Satan from religion mocking Hollywood for a platform that also has Satan submitting to the President of the United States" does not exactly instill confidence of "this will treat the subject of eternal damnation with the seriousness it deserves." First I'll get the "technical stuff" out of the way, as a movie it's very mid; it's a direct to streaming movie and it shows, not a lot of special effects but as a "reality based movie" it doesn't need much, the acting is serviceable but there isn't really much that needs emotion, Jack Black is kind-of playing Jack Black but it is different from his other roles, if it wasn't for the themes of the movie neither I nor Pokematic would be talking about it because it's just so nothing. If you just want an entertaining movie, don't bother with this. The movie is also PG-13 and earns it; there's an above average amount of swearing so even if you think the themes are "just fantasy" it's still "not for little kids." With that out of the way, time for the reason I'm talking about it. Oh, and spoilers ahead.

As I said, the plot of this movie is an 11 year old boy writes a letter to Santa, he doesn't fully believe in Santa but he's kind of doing a Pascal's Wager of "if he's not real, I wasted 10 minutes writing a letter to no one, but if he is real then I'm getting my wish." He also has dyslexia, so when he addresses the letter it goes to Satan (played by Jack Black, who I'll refer to as going forward to differentiate him from actual religious analysis) and not Santa. Jack Black then materializes in the boy's room one night saying "I got your letter, I don't get a lot of kids writing me" and the boy thinks he's Santa, but is confused by how he doesn't have a white beard or a red suit and how he has antlers instead of the reindeer. Jack Black picks up on this and tells the kid "I just dresses like this to not get noticed, here I'll show you" and then turns into a classic icon of Santa. Jack Black then tells the boy "tell you what, instead of giving you presents on Christmas I'll just give you 3 wishes right now, they can be anything, do we have a deal" (for which the rest of the deal is after the 3 wishes he gets the boy's soul, that he didn't tell him about) and the boy doesn't really know what he wants, but he would like the girl he has a crush on to give him a chance, and Jack Black says "done, you'll see tomorrow." So this first thing was pretty good; Satan does deceive, he makes himself look like someone to be trusted and that's how he gets you. While generally not quite as literal, he does present himself as "trustworthy leaders" and "good looking temptresses" and such, and to the eyes of a child Santa Clause would be fall under that category. Additionally, Satan doesn't directly tell you about the true consequences of your sins; in the Garden of Eden Satan through the serpent made a promise to Eve about what the fruit would do but didn't tell her the consequences of that action (God did, he warned them "if you eat this fruit you will die," but not Satan), so Jack Black not telling the boy the consequences of the wish is not far off. Allegorically, this is a decent depiction of Satan's temptation and deception.

The next day the girl the boy has a crush on says she likes him too, and Jack Black shows up in a hamster cage to tell the boy to go ask her out. Jack Black also gets the boy tickets to a Post Malone concert "as freebies" because "give me a chance" wasn't enough of a wish, and shortly after this the boy's best friend points out that he's not talking to Santa, he's talking to Satan, which after that realization the boy doesn't want anything to do with him but can't get away because he already made a wish. This is when things get a little complicated. First, good on the boy for immediately rejecting Satan, once one realizes he's sinning he should do all that he can to stop. I know there is debate between denominations about "is sin the act or the intent, and is ignorance of the sin or accident not a sin," but once an act is understood to be a sin then it is definitely a sin, and once the boy knew what he was doing he wanted to stop. He also argues that he didn't know, but Jack Black tells him "too bad, you already set this train in motion," and the boy does all that he can to not make another wish. Again, a decent depiction of "the spiral of sin." Once a sin is done it can't be undone (you can receive forgiveness, but you can't rewind time), and with many sins once you get that first hit it's really hard to not do it again. He got his wish and it felt great (more than great because Jack Black over delivered), but at a really high cost, and it was really hard to then deny himself that pleasure so as to not incur the cost. Again, not exactly "a bad allegory." Jack Black also over delivers, because the wish was "just to get a chance" but Jack Black give him "an amazing date." I am of 2 minds here, because this is presented as "Jack Black is just a nice guy who wants to do you a favor." On the one hand, sin has a way of over delivering on the rush; you think "it's not that bad" and then get a flood of pleasure to where you want to do it again, and the movie could be showing that in a more literal sense. On the other hand, this could be the movie saying to the viewer "Satan isn't that bad of a guy, he wants to make you happy," and is Satan working through the movie to make you lower your guard to him. It's not really clear which way it goes, either in the moment or in hindsight (which I will cover later). The same can be said with all the times Jack Black helps the boy to lie to or otherwise antagonize troubling adults in the movie (like when Jack Black makes a guy that's harassing the boy get violent diarrhea) which the boy doesn't necessarily want (he likes it but doesn't want it); it could be "Satan lures you into a false sense of security" or "Satan is friendly," and since it's not exactly shown to be "in the wrong" aside from the fact that "a clearly evil being is doing it" it's hard to really say.

After much temptation and rejection, the boy makes a second wish to fix his best friend's teeth so he can have the confidence to ask a girl out, after rationalizing "I'll still have 1 wish left, and I'm doing it for someone else." This is a decent depiction of the kind of mental gymnastics we humans do when we choose to sin. There are many situations where we say "well I've already done a bad thing, so long as I don't cross this line I'll be fine to continue, plus it's for a good cause;" an example of such would be stealing a loaf of bread and giving it to a homeless person, and then stealing a pack of lunch meat to also give to the homeless person "because it's just a loaf of bread and a pack of lunch meat, it's not like I'm holding the cashier up at gun point, and I'm feeding the hungry so it's a good thing." And to the movie's credit it does seem to treat it with the seriousness it deserves. Soon after the wish, the boy also ends up in the hospital and Jack Black shows him his best friend "hitting it off with the girl he likes" to hurt him and tempt him to make his third wish. This is not a bad depiction of the negative results of "sinning for good," the boy thought he was doing a good thing but then he feels bad about it afterwards. It's not guilt, but it is a negative emotion, and it is hard for him to not give into temptation again, and does have an element of "Satan is NOT your friend" to it.

There is even more temptation and rejection, and seeing the trouble this has caused the boy fully rejects Jack Black and says he's never going to make that 3rd wish. That is until his parents fighting comes to a head and he makes his third wish that his parents wouldn't get a divorce, to which Jack Black tells him to "bump it up since there are a lot of unhappy people who are still married," and he makes is pack with Jack Black that for the price of his soul he wants his parents to be happy. Now this is where the movie starts to go in the bad direction. The boy using his 3rd wish to make his parents happy is treated as a good act, a selfless deed. No, don't do that. That is not something to be shown as a good thing, that is bad. It's not "the tragic corruption of a good kid who gives into temptation and evil," it's "I can do good while doing bad," and that is the "don't take Satan seriously" messaging I was worried about going in. Also, the way Jack Black talks up "don't you want to make your parents happy," doesn't come off as "Satan over delivering to lure you into a false sense of security and get you addicted to the rush," it's very much framed as "Satan is looking out for you" since the boy is "already defeated and accepted his fait of eternal damnation;" at that point Satan is just going to take you and this movie is trying to get you to like Jack Black Satan.

What happens next is not good, Jack Black tells the boy he's not going to immediately die and go to Hell, "that's going to happen when his time comes in 70 to 80 years, but in the mean time, just be bad since you're already damned," and then there's a little montage of the boy being bad to the people who wronged him in the past (the crossing guard, a bully, and his teacher), which ultimately backfires as a car nearly hits him as he's ignoring the crossing guard, the bully punches him in the face and doesn't respect him, and the girl he likes says she no longer wants to be with him after what happened in class because he's a jerk now. He does receive some consequences for his bad actions, and seems like he takes a philosophy of "just because I'm screwed for eternity doesn't mean I have to be bad in the here and now," but it is missing the whole "repent for your actions" part which is bad.

Here's where the movie really loses it. It's revealed that Jack Black isn't Satan, he's a lesser demon that's trying to work up to full demon, and he gets reprimanded by Satan because he lied about being Satan and binding the boy to a contract without disclosing the terms, and that all the wishes were selfless which demonstrates that he's not corruptible, which makes the deal null and void. I'll admit that I'm not super knowledgeable about how deals with the devil work and what demons can and can't do in service of Satan, but from what I do know that's not how it works. As I said earlier, Satan deceives, so I'm not buying "you didn't tell him the rules and pretended to be someone you're not" as a "legitimate loophole," that just seems like something Satan would do. Also, "the boy is pure, I can't corrupt him" is also not valid; we are all sinners and as RedeemedZoomer says "we all deserve Hell, and it is only by the love of Jesus are we saved from eternal damnation." There's no way the boy is perfect and through his acts alone he escapes the fires of Hell, and to imply that he is is blasphemous. Also, even if his intentions were pure, he still sold his soul for 3 wishes and 2 of the times did that with full knowledge of what he was doing. That's not "a technicality," that's the mental gymnastics to justify sin, which Satan really likes since it draws you away from God. Also, Jack Black is fired after this, and it's framed as "we should feel bad for him." Even though Jack Black is revealed to not be "the ultimate evil of Satan" and instead is "one of Satan's lesser evil minions," he's still an agent of evil who tried to corrupt a good boy. Like, no, we don't feel bad for demons.

The movie ends with Jack Black going to the boy and telling him the truth about how he's "not Satan and just a demon, a fired one at that who now has nowhere to go," and that the deal is null and void, and that he still had one wish left since his parents were already making up before he made the wish, so he gave him a wish from his letter, and that he's going to miss him because he started to like him. Again, this is bad. This is meant to make you sympathize with a literal demon. This is also the "in hindsight" thing I was talking about in the beginning. For the first wish Jack Black gives the boy super tickets to a big concert "because 'giving you a chance' wasn't big enough." Since this was "before Jack Black got to know the boy" there is an argument that the over delivering was "part of the scheme to corrupt the boy," but with the added context of "I just liked the boy" it's really hard to not see it as also being "I'm a nice demon." The boy also asks Jack Black what he's going to do now, and it's directed in an emotional way of "I'm worried about your safety, don't say goodbye friend, will I ever see you again." Again, that's bad, demons are not your friends and should not be depicted as such, and the only response one should have is "I hope to never see you again," and this is trying to make you feel bad for a literal demon. Then the third wish, Jack Black had no reason to grant that since "the deal was no good," meaning he did that "because he's a nice guy," which again is bad, it's making evil look good. And the wish is that he would have his dead brother back (because the trauma of that was like what caused his parents to fight, and the reconciliation was them realizing they couldn't blame themselves or each other for the accident), and when the boy goes to the Christmas tree his brother is alive and healthy, which is meant to be a touching moment, but again it was done with dark powers by a being of evil. This happy ending is meant to make you not fear Satan and his minions, it's meant to make you think "Satan is powerful too, and he'll also look out for you," which is Satanic. And then it ends with Jack Black being the angel at the top of the Christmas tree, where the mom just before said something about "I like the angel tree topper, it's like a guardian angel looking over us." No, just no, Hell spawns are NOT guardian angels and to make them appear so is blasphemous, and there's no question that this is saying "evil beings are not that bad." 

So that was Dear Santa. It wasn't all bad, there were some things that were "a good depiction of how we can be tempted by evil and fall to sin," but it really misses the mark with "the realities of evil" in the end. It also uses God's name pretty flippantly (a lot of people say "oh my G-d" as an exclamation pretty regularly, including Jack Black who is a demon who said "it's just an expression" which it certainly isn't and is wrong). The good doesn't outweigh the bad, and based on where the movie ends the good could be argued as just being a deception to get you to lower your guard for when the bad comes. I recommend against it; on top of the blasphemies and potentially pro-Satanic message, it's also just not very good. It's not the worst use of Satan in fiction (adult animation tends to make Satan "completely harmless," this at least had some "he's dangerous" elements), but "not the worst" does not mean "good" and this was pretty bad. Well, this has been Catholiccontriversy, signing off, and may God bless you.

Jaws 50th Anniversary at the Drive In (with Blues Brothers)

Catholiccontriversy Reviews The King of Kings Movie

Carlo Acutis: Roadmap to Reality, Catholiccontriversy's Fathom Reviews

A fathom event about the first millennial saint, this aught to be interesting. Hello catholiccontriversy here, and I'm getting back from the documentary Carlo Acutis: Roadmap to Reality, a documentary about Bessed (or Saint depending on when you read this) Carlo Acutis. I don't know much about Carlo, but my priest at my home parish talks about him regularly, mostly because he's a recent young future saint (he was 15 when he died and was born in 1991, he'd only be 2 years older than me) and that inspires people because he wasn't "an old man that devoted his entire life and is like your grandpa" and he isn't "a young martyr from hundreds of years ago." Also, a little about me, I am a millennial online content creator, I've been doing this since the early days of youtube starting not long after my 16th birthday, and for a little while now I've been thinking "we need a patron saint of online creators," because we online evangelists could use someone to help inspire us as we use new media to spread the word of God, who himself/herself used new media to spread the word of God. So when the movie started talking about modern technology and how Carlo is "the influencer of Christ, growing up in a technological world," I got excited because maybe that would mean that we finally have our patron saint of online content creators and this would be about how he used the internet to spread the word of God.

Well...about that....I guess I should start out with my first major criticism of this movie, and that is "who/what it is REALLY about." I wasn't like "taking notes with a stop watch" so I can't be fully sure in my proportions, but this movie spent very little time talking about Carlo, like I'd estimate that less than 50% of it was spent talking about him. I would say that 40% of the movie was about how technology is designed to be addictive and is separating people from the church (a modern idol), 15% is about a school's unplugged pilgrimage to Rome an Assisi and how the teens are handling it, 20% is about the Eucharist and Eucharistic miracles, and 25% of it is about Carlo and his relationship to technology and the Eucharist. Initially, this made me quite frustrated, I came to learn about the first millennial saint, the saint who is 2 years older than me and died 3 years before I had my call to profess my beliefs online and was 1 year younger than when I started my journey in using the internet to spread the good news whenever God calls me to. In terms of what Carlo would want (at least based on what is presented in the movie), it makes sense. Carlo was "obsessed" with the Eucharist (and I say "obsessed" with the upmost respect, like how people say "I'm addicted to Jesus, I'm a Jesus freak"), he wanted his first communion as soon as he possibly could, and went to Eucharistic adoration and daily mass all the time, and his websites were dedicated to the Eucharist and Eucharistic miracles and never wanted it to be about himself. So I get where the directors were coming from with what they did. However, I came here for a movie about Carlo Acutis the first millennial saint who died young and had a lot in common with the youth of today, not a movie about technology addiction and the Eucharist. Like, they showed paintings of him and instead of a halo he has wifi bars, because "he is the modern saint." I want to know that story, because that's what I and my online brothers and sisters in Christ do.

Now I'm not saying it's bad to make a movie about those topics, but it's not what the title was saying it was. Another fathom event my wife and I went to was "Super Man, the Christopher Reeves story," a movie about Christopher Reeves before and after his accident. If that movie was like this one, it would be primarily about dressage and different kinds of paralysis with some mentions of Christopher Reeves and his life with quadriplegia. It would be like if we went to a movie called "Matthew the Evangelist" and it looks like it will be about Saint Matthew but then it's just the gospel according to Matthew. Again, it's not like that's a bad story to tell, but we would be coming to learn about Matthew, not his account of the life of Jesus. It just felt kind of dishonest.

My second major gripe is how the movie portrays technology. Here's the thing, I have lots of problems with technology and what is has done to society. I don't like social media, I generally stay away from facebook and it made my highschool and college years kind of empty because all my friends were terminally online and didn't like to talk IRL. I hate LLM GenAI because it's a solution in need of a problem and is being forced down our throats despite no one wanting it. Like all online content creators I hate the algorithm. There are a lot of ways that technology sucks. On the flip side, I love technology. Right now I'm using the internet to reach potentially billions of people with my opinions and message. I've documented all my major (and sometime minor) life events through blogging and vlogging for 15 years and have enjoyed looking back at my memories and one day know I will be happy to have such a complete account of them. I used to annoy my friends and family with my ramblings because I had to speak my mind, and now I tell strangers online that actually want to hear what I have to say instead of annoying my friends and family. I have made "actual works of art for which I am proud of" and I wouldn't have done that if not for the internet. I have made actual close friends online and have been able to find community with people who I otherwise would never know. My point being is that technology is not inherently good or bad, it's a tool that can be used positively or negatively. This movie though, it focuses on the negative applications, drawing significant attention to social media addiction and how people have religious devotion to science and technology in an absence of religion, how "people wait for hours to see a concert but can't find the determination to go to church," and how people are trying to use technology to achieve some kind of immortality here on earth when instead they should be looking towards living eternally with Jesus, and all that bad stuff. Again, I get where they're coming from, modern technology has caused a lot of problems with society. However, it's condemning a tool, the whole "blame guns for gun violence" thing, and that is the WRONG way to go about this conversation.

This is where I get really scared with that kind of messaging, if you do not accept that smart phones and social media and the like are now part of the world we live in, you are going to lose people faster than you already are. I'm going to give an analogy, instead of modern technology, let's talk about alcohol. Alcohol is not a "wholly positive substance;" people use it to get drunk and make bad decisions like drunk driving or becoming violent, people get addicted to alcohol and it ruins their lives, alcohol is medically classified as a poison and does damage to the body. However, a lot of people like alcohol; beer, wine, and liquor tastes good, after a particularly stressful day alcohol can help with relieving the tension built up during the day, and for people with social anxiety can help relax them in social environments, and a majority of the people who use alcohol do so responsibly without any major problems. Jesus's first miracle wasn't making the blind see, it was turning water into wine. Jesus didn't tell his disciples "drink this milk or cranberry juice, it is my blood," he said "drink this wine, it is my blood." All this to say, there isn't anything inherently wrong with alcohol and even the King of Kings recognized the good it can do. Here's where you run into problems, there are people who like beer and are uncertain about religion, a religion or denomination or evangelist preacher who says "alcohol is evil, nothing good can come from it, it's Jesus or beer" is going to lose that person because "I don't know about Jesus, but if he's against beer that's not for me." However, if one approaches it from a position of "you drink a lot of beer, Jesus liked to drink too but not that much, there can be room in your heart for both the Lord and the fruit of the vine but you'll need to make some room, next time share that beer with Jesus instead of just hogging it for yourself," that's going to be more welcoming and is completely consistent with a legitimate faith journey. A non-drinker is going to say "I don't get what the big deal is, just don't drink and instead focus on Jesus," but then they'll turn around and say "why is my church empty." Now replace what I said with technology, you as an older person are the "non-drinker" who can say "I don't use technology and my life is fine, and you can live without too," but to say "it's incompatible" to someone who already uses technology, it's going to lose people. Like, there was a 4 or so minute part of the movie where a priest said "if Saint Paul had social media, he would be using it to reach people, modern technology can be used for spreading the good news," but that was 4 minutes out of 82 minutes, where at least 40 had to have been spent saying "and this is why modern technology is bad" in some way. The movie really shouldn't have spent so much time on "you're missing the Lord because you spend all your time online" and spent a lot more time on "is Jesus in your instagram story, he wants to be in your instagram story."

If nothing else, this movie inspired me to look into Carlo's story and journey to sainthood and what he did from an online space. We online content creators could use someone whose story is super similar to our own for guidance and intercession. There are plenty of great evangelist saints we can look to as a blueprint for how to spread the message, and patron saints of video production and authorship and such, but right now at the time of writing there isn't a patron saint of online influencers whom we can say a prayer of intercession to and look to see how they did things and what we could learn from them. Carlo seems like he might be that saint for a modern time, but this movie didn't do a very good job at showing us if he is, and unfortunately might scare people away from the faith in it's conversations surrounding modern technology. For now though I'll just continue doing what I do and pray for God to use me to spread his word however he sees fit. This has been Catholiccontriversy, signing off, and may God bless you.

Amazon Prime's Tom Green 2025 Reviews

Amazon Prime made 4 productions with Tom Green recently, This is the Tom Green Documentary, Tom Green Country, I Got a Mule, and Last One Laughing Canada. Here are all my reviews.

Review Topic	Rumble Player	Bitchute Player	Oddysee Player	Minds Player
This is the Tom Green Documentary
Tom Green Country
Last One Laughing Canada
I Got a Mule

High Potential Logs

Season 1

Episode 1

Episode 2

Episode 3

Episode 4

Episode 5

Episode 6


Episode 7

Episode 8


Episode 9


Episode 10


Episode 11


Episode 12


Episode 13


Season 1 Recap



Season 2

Episode 1


Episode 2


Episode 3


Episode 4


Episode 5


Episode 6


Episode 7


Episode 8


Episode 9


Episode 10


Episode 11


Episode 12

Beans and Atomic Waste Soda, Pokematic's Food Reviews

Pokematic Reviews Zack Snyder's Justice League

 If it's not a good game or catholic...who do you call?...why Pokematic "hi."

Like many people, I have been a pretty vocal critic of the DCEU-Snyderverse. I was mixed on Man of Steel, sort-of liked Suicide Squad but it wasn't all that good, wanted to believe with Justice League but was let down by the Snyder taint, and the less I think about Batman Vs Superman the better ("ding ding ding ding ding" "you're letting them kill Martha"). So when everyone was saying "release the Snyder Cut, release the Snyder Cut" of Justice League, all I could think was "what is wrong with you people, the only good things in Justice League were clearly made by Joss Whedon and the bad parts were clearly made by Zack Snyder, I for one don't want another Batman Vs Superman since that is easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot)." I mean, I get that people look to The Richard Donner Cut of Superman 2 as evidence that a director going back to finish his vision of a DC superhero movie and that version being better than the theatrical release, but people overlook the fact that Richard Donner's previous superhero movie (Superman 1) was GOOD, whereas Snyder's previous superhero movie (Batman Vs Superman) was BAD. But then to promote HBO Max Warner Brothers brought Zack back to make his movie for HBO Max as "Zack Snyder's Justice League" and it got glowing reviews, with everyone saying "this is so much better than Joss's cut, we need to bring back the Snyderverse." That kind of peaked my interests, but I wasn't about to go out of my way to watch it (not get a subscription to HBO Max, or find someplace to buy or rent it). Well my local library had it available for rental so since it wasn't "out of my way" (I was already there) I decided to have a look. I'll try my best to not compare this to the Joss cut, but given why it exists and what it wants to be that's going to be a bit unavoidable.

Oh yeah, SPOILER WARNING!!!!!!!

This part of the review I'm going to do with 5+ year old memories of Joss Whedon's Justice League and try to review it as it's own thing, and later I'll rewatch Joss's JL and return with a more direct comparison.

So first I want to say that this movie is stupid long, 4 hours and 2 minutes. I had to watch it over 2 days because I fell asleep halfway through (not a commentary on it being boring, I watched it kind of later at night when I was dead tired and it just kept going long past when I would have gone to bed normally). According to wikipedia when this movie did get a very limited theatrical release Zack had to put a 10 minute intermission in the middle. There's no way this movie could have been released in theaters as is. A main reason for this is because of a fundamental problem with how this cinematic universe was planned out, because a fair amount of this additional runtime is given to developing Cyborg, who REALLY should have gotten his own stand alone film for this reason. There's also a lot more "mourning superman" with Lois and Martha, which does sort of work, but at the same time feels like it too should have been it's own movie. Kind-of like how Avengers Infinity War and Avengers End Game are 2 halves of the same story, I think it really could have been split into "Justice League, the Origin of Cyborg and Flash" (because he also got some introduction too) and "Justice League, the Return of Superman." I think there's enough here to make 2 full movies out of this. Compounding the "this could have been broken up" aspect is this movie is literally broken up with title cards. It says "part 1, assembling an army," "part 2, finding hope," "part 6, defeating evil" and what not (these aren't actual subtitles, but it's basically what it is). I've seen movies that do this (Clerks comes to mind), and it works for what Zack is trying to do I guess, but it really just kind of shows "this isn't 1 continuous story, it's multiple linked stories."

Speaking of character introductions, one thing that's really hard to "put in the perspective" is that Aquaman still receives no real development, he's just "there" and we're supposed to accept that he is a superhero. Since this movie technically came out after Aquaman and this movie is "meant for the DCEU fans that are assumed to have seen all the movies," a lot of people have already seen the aquaman stand alone film and know who he is. However, Zack Snyder's Justice League was supposed to release before Aquaman, so we still technically don't know who Aquaman is. There were times when watching this I had to remind myself "aquaman didn't happen yet, we don't know who this guy is." It didn't happen a lot, and "Aquaman sucks so who cares" (even though his movie was the best DCEU movie), but I think it was still worth noting.

OK, enough with the "bad aspects" for a little while, what about the "good aspects." Well as I said, Cyborg gets development. In this movie we learn about his powers and what he is capable of, along with how he got them (I want to say in the original Cyborg was about as developed as Aquaman with "he shows up and does some things, but that's kind of it"). This definitely works and makes me interested in his arc, and only further explains why I want him to have his own movie or at least have a JL movie focused just on his arc. From what I know with Teen Titans, he is a very interesting character with the ability to control technology, which happens here. Flash also gets an additional scene or 2 of development, but he's still very much a "who are you" kind of guy.

Next, there's more "villain motivation" if you will. In both films the Mother Cubes are a big deal and the McGuffin of the film, but instead of Stepenwolf wanting to get them together for...reasons not very clear, it's to bring Darkside to Earth so they can concur it (oh yeah, there's another villain, one more powerful to give reason for possible sequels). The cubes are also awakened by Superman's death in the opening, and it works really well to give a reason why now of all times they are awaking and why the different worlds are brought together (Amazons, Antlantians, and Cyborg's dad who is researching a cube discovered by the Nazis). There definitely are some real stakes this time.

Speaking of Stepenwolf and Darkside, it does add a little bit of "future stakes" as well. I remember when watching Joss's JL thinking "so on the 5th movie they're giving us their most powerful being in the universe, where is this going to go from here," because there was no "Darkside is more powerful than me" aspect. This actually had more room to breath.

There are also a lot of other "directors cut" additions and changes that are felt but not obvious (like there's some dialog differences that seem minor but when put side by side they change the way it feels type of things, and I'm probably going to get into those later). Main note is the rating change. While Joss's JL is rated PG-13, Zack's JL is rated R. I would put it in the "soft R category" though, it's mainly because we have 3 uses of f*** and Stepenwolf getting visibly decapitated with what seems like blood on Wonder Woman's sword. I don't think it adds much, it's not like how in Logan the violence and swearing was used to show how far Logan has fallen, this just kind of feels like Zack wants to be crude and say "this is a serious story." The other "felt but not obvious" aspect I can identify is that things feel "more feats of wit than strength." Like, this is mostly felt in the 2 major fight scenes, after Superman is resurected and when everyone is fighting Stepenwolf. In the return of Superman fight, everyone is really slugging it out with Superman in Joss's JL because Superman is confused as to where he is and what's going on, and only after Superman says "you won't let me live, you won't let me die, tell me, do you bleed, you will" to Batman and some other big fighting does Superman come to his senses and joins them. In Zack's JL, it's more that Superman is just inspecting them and Cyborg's auto defense is triggered and Superman is now fighting defensively and is creaming everyone. It's only when Lois comes in does he immediately stop goes with her to enjoy life. (Also, with how it was directed I thought "you won't let me live, you won't let me die" was a Zack line, but apparently is was Joss's line). Then when it comes to the Steppenwolf fight, there isn't nearly as much fighting as I remember in Joss's JL, and again the actions feel more "planned out with an expected cause and effect" instead of "oh no, think on my feet and fight it out." I'm not saying either of these don't work, because they do work, but they're definitely different.

Here's a very noticeable difference that is either a good or bad thing depending on your perspective, this movie is very serious and takes itself very seriously. Joss's JL had a lot of jokes and comic relief, especially with the Flash and sometimes Batman (my favorite line in the entire movie is after the Superman fight when Batman said "yep, something is definitely bleeding"), and while many people disliked that I thought it worked mostly well to tell a story that isn't all gloom and doom and remind us that these are heroes with hope and will. Zack's JL doesn't really have any of that (Flash has some minor moments, but it's not much). Again, this depends on your wishes, but it's probably the most obvious difference.

Another very noticeable difference is the epilog and 4 different endings. Of course after Stepenwolf fight there was a superhero pose of "we won," but then there were the epilogs and teasers. One of the endings was the post credit scene in Joss's JL with Lex Joker hiring Slade, but with the addition of him breaking out of Arkam. Now this scene alone almost ruined my experience with Joss's JL because I despise Jessie Eisenberg as Lex Luthor (he's playing like a Joker character, and he is probably more than half of the reason I hate Batman Vs Superman). I get that we are "stuck with him," but he just doesn't work for me. The scene is basically the same from what I remember (except for the prison break thing). Now for the unique endings. In general we see what happened to everyone; cyborg learns about his dad's pride in him and he feels at ease, Flash gets a job in criminal justice to try to eventually get his dad out of prison, Superman and Lois move into his childhood home after Bruce Wayne buys the bank that foreclosed on the farm, Batman starts setting up the Hall of Justice, and something happens with Wonder Woman and Aquaman. It's a decent epilog and I kind of wonder how much of "the original vision" it was. I'm not saying it was reshot (supposedly only 5 or so minutes of additional footage was filmed for this movie), but this was very "book end, shut the door because there is no more," and there were definitely supposed to be more movies. I just wonder if Zack did some changes to his original vision because he knew "this was it, there won't be any more Snyderverse films so tie everything up." Then there's also a scene where batman is dreaming the Justice League has to team up with Joker to defeat Superman, and it's mostly just a back and forth between Batfleck and Joker Leto (using these names to point out that it's Ben Afleck's Batman and Jarred Leto's Joker). While this was happening all I could really think was "Jarred is proving himself as the Joker even if it feels like he's doing a Ledger impression most of the time, but what does this have to do with anything." Ultimately it was to tease a Martian Manhunter film or something like that, but all it really felt like was Leto getting a second chance at Joker since he was wasted in Suicide Squad. Then absent is the foot race between Superman and Flash. I get why, it was one of those "obviously Joss" things, and was just meant to be a fun follow-up on the whole "Superman was able to fight Flash at Flash speeds in the Superman fight," but that and the Batman-Superman interactions of the Superman fight were the most memorable things of Joss's JL and it was sad to see it not included.

So here's the question, is this movie great like everyone else seems to say it is? I'm going to say no. It's definitely competent and shows that Snyder isn't a complete hack, and as I said if he was allowed to split it into 2 movies (because I'm sure part of the reason this was so rushed was because Marvel already had like 2 Avengers movies out and WB wanted to get there) and Zack had the desire to (because maybe he wanted a 4 hour movie), this has the makings of a great Cyborg origin story and return of Superman story, joined by stopping the threat of Steppenwolf. It's also given the time to breath and tell the story it wants to tell, which I can't exactly say the same for Joss's JL. However, at times it does feel tedious, and it has more Lex Joker than Joss's cut (he's seen in the opening, and that's a deduction in my books), and it is stupid long. This is at best 6/10, I don't understand why everyone is saying "8/10, 9/10, best DCEU movie, bring back the Snyderverse." I think that a lot of the praise it gets is because it's better than Joss's cut (which will be the comparison I'll verify next), and they wanted it and got it. If this came out when it was supposed to I think it would have been the 6/10 that I give it.  It's not bad, it's not the worst thing that came out of the DCEU, but it's far from the best like so many people say it is. But that's just my "watch it on it's own, largely judge on it's own merit" viewing. 

OK, onto my "rewatch original and compare," and I'll be writing these as they happen.

First off, I like the opening scene better in Joss's cut. I know "CGI lip is cringe" is showcased in this cell phone video, but what I love about it is it reminds us of WHY we should root for superman. Sure, we didn't see him save the day, but we saw him giving hope to the children and why it's so bad that he's gone (I want to say BVS almost made him the bad guy). Point to Joss.

Next I need to do the comparison of "precipitating events." In Zack's cut the opening credits is Superman's death and how that activates the mother cubes in all the civilizations (Amazon, Atlantis, and Human), whereas in Joss's cut Batman is trying to find a scout by using a thug as bate and the scout blows up and leaves a clue to the mother cubes, and apparently this is something Batman has been tracking. The opening credits is then spent mourning Superman and showing how the city has fallen without him. I'm torn on this. On the one hand, Zack does a great job of explaining what's going on with the mother cubes and why we should care (all silently), but from a "visual expediency" aspect, I like Joss (we see Batman doing Batman things, and we're reminded of Superman without having too much), and while I feel like there is something missing with Joss's batman detective work (like there's a movie we're missing), this teased at "the batman" sort-of and was what that movie was (and it was great for it). I think I need to give Zack the point on this one, but it was close.

Next I need to talk about Wonder Woman and Aquaman's introductions. First, they're flipped (because Zack opens with "going to Aquaman"), and there's something there that is kind of important. In Zack's cut the movie opens with "going to Aquaman" to recruit him (I think), and there was a lot more room to talk (Joss was "I'm looking for Aquaman, are you him, what are the cubes, come join me," whereas Zack's was "there are legends of a guardian, can you take me to him, song and dance of wits in a more drawn out way). Joss's cut is definitely faster and gets to the point quicker, and kind of feels like something is missing (because there is). It does have the joke about "talking to fish," which is funny. If Joss would have given it a little more room to breath I would have to give the point to him, but I have to give too much breathing room the point. Now for Wonder Woman. Her introduction happening before Aquaman's is necessary for Joss I'd say, because we kind of need the "who is defending the people" element that wasn't necessary in Zack's. The scene is shorter with less fighting, which happened for PG13 I think (Zack's is part of the reason his cut is rated R), but aside from less action nothing is really lost I think.

Now for a good scene with Bruce and Alfred. After Aquaman Joss's cut has a scene where we have Bruce trying to figure out what the cubes are and who he can recruit to his team, with some great banter between him and Alfred. This scene is all Joss, and makes the cube mystery work. While in Zack's we kind of knew what the cubes were from the opening scene, but the characters didn't and this is them trying to figure it out. Zack also just develops everyone but Batman, whereas this gives Batman some much needed development (BVS he was kind of the bad guy). Also, the scene is quick (like 2 minutes), and manages to say a lot (unlike Zack and his scenes). Point to Joss.

Now for Flash's introduction. Zack starts with Barry applying for a dog walking job and has a little bit of comedy before introducing the conflict with his dad. Joss forgoes the dog walking job and goes right to the prison conflict with the dad, but introduces it with a literal blink and you'll miss it joke (for like 1 or 2 frames when Barry is confronting another visitor his hand is center screen, and that's when he draws all over the other guy's face). Then with the conversation with his dad most all the same information is conveyed except more condensed, and while it was nice to see the more "heavy hearted interaction of Barry and his dad," Joss just got to the point faster. This one was close, but point to Joss.

Now for Cyborg's introduction. Joss got to it after Flash, and Zack did superman mourning before doing Cyborg. Almost on the merit of "I don't want superman mourning, this isn't really his story" I would give Joss the point, but unfortunately Zack did a much better job at introducing and developing Cyborg, so point has to go to Zack.

Now we have the mother box awakening. Since cyborg was just introduced in Joss's cut it's hinted at the lab here before the Amazon mother cube. In both cuts we're kind of "introduced" to the Amazon's cube being awoken, but Zack's has the benefit of having the "it was awoken by superman's death" aspect, whereas Joss's is just "this thing that was never established as dormant is now awoken." Same kind of goes for Stepenwolf (Zack's had some more introduction, but not loads more). The Amazon escape is also different (I want to say Zack's has more destruction and death), but it doesn't really matter. It seems like the obvious choice is Zack's, but again it's also not as long. Right now I'm about 30 minutes into Joss's cut whereas Zack's was almost an hour at this point. Point still goes to Zack but not by a super wide margin.

Now for some Lois and Martha interactions. Joss has a scene right now where Lois and Martha are catching up (Martha was foreclosed, Lois is doing puff pieces) and working through their grief, whereas Zack has many scenes of them by themselves in their grief as we see the conversation play out. This is some personal preference, but I have to give this one to Joss. It's a movie called "Justice League," I want "Justice League." I get that Superman's death is a big deal and you can't really have half a Superman movie without Superman, but Zack's cut was very Superman and his family heavy, and I didn't really like that. It was very competently made, but it was just too much. Here we get all of that in just the right dose for my tastes. Then here's another thing, Zack's scenes were very washed out, whereas Joss's scene was well saturated. Instead of being super dower about Superman's death, this is them working through it and coming back with hope for the future, and I really liked that. 2 points to Joss.

Now we're at the backstory of Stepenwolf and the mother cubes, with Diana filling Bruce in on the backstory. I know in Zack's cut there was something about Diana going into a cave to learn all of this, but I think both cuts have Diana giving the backstory. I want to say that Joss gives more story to Diana and the question of "how does she know this" is kind of there, but I chalk it up to Amazon folklore. Because Zack's explanation left such little of an impression on me I'm giving this one to Joss.

There's also a sub-plot about Cyborg identifying who batman really is through his powers and seeking him out, which I don't remember from Zack's cut (and I say "don't remember" because if it left that little of an impression he didn't do it right). Diana makes first contact in Joss's cut, and I think she also did in Zack's, but how it's set-up works here. Cyborg's backstory was definitely handled better in Zack's cut, but this sub-plot definitely works. Point to Joss.

Flash meets Batman is pretty much exactly the same in both cuts. There are some more jokes in Joss's cut, and while I would give this a point, it's just not worth it. This is a draw.

At this point in Joss's cut we see Aquaman in action saving a fisherman with the ultimate introduction of the Antlantian cube and Stepenwolf stealing it. This was earlier in Zack's I think, going for a "develop Aquaman before developing the cube" thing (there was a scene with Willem Dafoe) and the scenes were separated, but Joss made it work. I still have to give Zack the point with the pacing.

Now for something completely Joss, the Russian family in Stepenwolf's holdout. Joss just kind of has Stepenwolf in a nuclear reactor bringing the cubes together whereas Zack has him building his holdout from a nuclear reactor, and that is kind of important to "he is creating a thing, it just doesn't happen." However, him making his holdout in an inhabited town instead of a ghost town adds danger to his villain. This one is also a draw.

Now we're at the joining of the team with Commissioner Gordon. I want to say that there are some differences with Cyborg's dad being kidnapped, and Zack had a thing with Nazi's somewhere with this, and the first confrontation with Stepenwolf, but I can't really think of it. Whatever additional action and such there is in Zack's cut is counterbalanced by the levity and faster pace of Joss's cut. I don't remember Aquaman joining in on fight in Zack's cut while this was in Joss's cut, and this seems slightly less forgettable, so half a point to Joss.

OK, now we're at the team at the batcave. We get Cyborg's backstory along with "the cube was awoken the day superman died," so Joss wasn't completely forgotten. The conversation between bringing superman back to life is kind of the same, I think, but seems a little more "who REALLY are you Batman and Diana." There's also more color saturation which is good. There's also some good "what happens if we bring him back, is it worth it," and I don't remember that in the Zack cut. Zack was kind of "do we need Superman" but Joss is "is it safe to bring him back," there's also a good scene where Bruce and Alfred are talking about why Superman is such a necessity. Point to Joss.

Now for exhuming superman and getting his body to the ship. Cyborg and Flash have some good banter about how they got their powers and how they are both "the accidents." I don't remember this from Zack's, and it worked really well. I also don't know if this for sure wasn't in Zack's cut, but in Joss's cut Clark is buried with a photo of his dad. If nothing else, there's more saturation which makes it a little better. Flash being able to charge the mother cube to resurrect Superman is explained a little more in Zack's cut, but I'll take the other aspects over that. Point to Joss.

OK, now for the resurrection of Superman, the big fight between Superman and the rest of the league. In both cuts he starts fighting because Cyborg's suit mistake's him for a threat, and he is confused over what is happening, but Joss has Flash saying "it's a Pet Semetary thing," which is a bonus. Both have the great "superman is fast enough to see flash" shot, which is great, and I want to say there's some more fighting between Superman and Flash. One thing that isn't in Zack's cut is Batman fighting Superman, and Superman saying "you won't let me live, you won't let me die, do you bleed?" Both stop because Lois shows up to the scene, but in Zack's it's implied she just "shows up because this is his memorial" whereas here it's because Batman called her in as "the big guns." Plus, there's the line of "yep, something is definitely bleeding" in Joss's cut, which is great, and like 1 of 2 things I remembered from my other viewing. Oh, and when Clark flies off with Lois and goes to the family farm, it's just "we're at the farm" not "we're playing house as well." 2 points to Joss.

Now for regrouping. I don't remember this from Zack's cut, but there was probably something. It has another "Aquaman talks to fish" joke, so there's that. The conversation between Bruce and Diana is welcomed. In Zack's cut we would be getting Superman focus, but this is some good development between Batman and Wonder Woman, discussing the challenges of being a leader and what they desire. This was good, point to Joss.

Next there is a shot that is Superman and Lois on the farm, with some discussion about coming back. What I like is it's short. Lois and Clark don't have a lot of time together, with some flirtation. Clark is also reunited with Martha. A lot of this was in Zack's cut, but it's not overbearing and doesn't overstay it's welcome. There's also more color saturation (I think) so it feels happier like a good reunion. Point to Joss.

Now it's the flight over to Stepenwolf's base. I remember the scene playing out differently in Zack's cut, but I don't remember what specifically. I think they talked on the launching platform more. In Joss's cut it's a monolog by Aquaman, and I know this was a Joss addition because it's kind of funny and is set-up by the lasso of truth. Both are probably competent enough, but I like the humor so half a point to Joss.

Now for the big climactic fight with Stepenwolf, first the fight between the team and the bug goons. Honestly, they're both competent. There are some different battle shots, Joss has some more team fighting while Zack has more solo fighting. I'm partial to the team fighting, but they're both good. This one is a tie.

One thing that's absent from Joss's cut is Clark's return to Superman, where he's going to his cave of solitude and donning the suit again. As much as I want this to be "not a superman movie," that really did add to the movie. In Joss's cut he just kind of "comes back." Point to Zack.

Now for the Superman and Flash saving the civilians, a sub-plot added to Joss's cut. I like the addition because it shows them doing hero work and showing the stakes. Sure, WE know it would be bad if Stepenwolf destroyed the world because we live on the worlf, but we don't have any stakes of "normal people dying" which was kind of the entire reason batman and superman were fighting in BVS (superman saved the day but destroyed the city killing hundreds if not thousands). There's also some friendly rivalry between Superman and Flash where Flash was just going to save the family in the truck running really fast and Superman catches up and saves a whole apartment building. I really like this interaction and development. Point to Joss.

Now for the big climactic fight between the Justice League and Stepenwolf. Frankly Zack did it better. Sure, Joss had some more team battles, but Zack really had everyone square off with Stepenwolf and lose until OP Superman came in and really leveled the playing field. Then there's the actual defeat of Stepenwolf. In Joss's cut he gets afraid after the cubes are separated and then goes out like a bitch after his bug goons start swarming him and a teleporting beam takes him away. In Zack's cut a very strategic team-up happens and Wonder Woman decapitates him after Cyborg reopens the portal from the cube or something. There was REAL weight behind the fight in Zack's cut whereas Joss seemed to just want to get it over with. I have to give 2 points to Zack, because climactic final battle is kind of a big deal.

There's also the separation of the cubes. This one also has to go to Zack. In Joss's cut Cyborg is able to rather easily start the separation and just have Superman help him pull them apart. There's some great bonding levity after separating them between Superman and Cyborg, but Zack had real stakes. Throughout the fight we would cut to cyborg struggling to understand the cube, and then it ended up being too late and Flash had to go faster than light to turn back time and make it work after he'd been wounded and struggles to move. I'll have to give Zack another 2 points for this, because this is kind of an important part of the movie.

Now for the endings. It's pretty even. Zack has like 30 minutes of epilog going into details of where everyone ended up, and there's a scene where Bruce has a nightmare with Jarred Leto Joker. Joss has a lot of the same things (Bruce buying the bank to give Clark the house, Barry getting the job, Bruce buying a building for the hall of justice) but has a voice over of Lois writing a story and doesn't go into too much detail of Cyborg, Lois, and Diana (though she is shown fighting crime). Here it's just like 10 minutes. There's also Flash and Superman having a foot race to the pacific coast, which is great. Both have the same post credits with Luthor and Slade (though Zack's is a little longer, which is a determent because Jessie is a terrible Lex Luthor). I'm just going to have to give this one a tie.

Before I tally everything up, here are 2 points that go to Zack that didn't really line up in the comparison. First, Stepenwolf isn't "the ultimate villain," he's actually working for Darkside and it adds a lot more stakes. I don't know how it would have really worked in Joss's cut, but he could have done it I think. Then there's the sound track. I don't know what to really say, but Zack has a better sound track. There's also the inclusion of Martian Man Hunter, which is a good "room for sequels and world building," but I don't think it's enough for a point. 2 points for Zack.

I'm also not sure how much to REALLY give this, but I also have to give Zack a point for the visual effects. This is more than just "CGI lip," there were also some scenes with the Amazons and Aquaman where the background looked REALLY flat and obvious green screen (and if it wasn't then the cinematography was really bad because it looked super fake). I don't know if this is just "WB was getting impatient and running out of money" for Joss's cut, and Zack basically got a movie budget to do all the post production to finish his cut (I read 70 million on Wikipedia), but this has to go to Zack.

For those playing along at home, it's 15.5 to Joss and 13 to Zack. It's very close, but I guess that means Joss is the winner here, right? Well no. Then if Joss isn't the winner then that must mean Zack is the winner. Again no. Neither of these movies are exceptionally great. There are things I really like about Joss's version and there are things I don't like. There are things I really like about Zack's version and there are things that I don't like. Zack's movie is in a lot of ways a more technically competent movie, but then it's often times more of "a Superman movie" than "a Justice League movie." Joss's movie is more of "a Justice League movie" and has a lot more of that team building, but misses the mark on being "a technically competent movie" (a lot was probably Warner Brother's fault pushing for a 120 minute movie and having to squeeze what is probably a 3-4 hour story into 2 hours). The best version of Justice League is the fan edit that lives in my brain. I recommend watching these back to back and getting both movies in your head, because I think that together these make 1 really good super hero movie. Well this has been Pokematic, signing off, and bu-bye.

John Lemonade, Pokematic's Food Reviews

Pokematic Goes To White Castle (and Reviews the Double Cheese Slider)

Pokematic Reviews SpongeBob Finders Keepers Chocolate Egg

Happy Gamer Enjoys the Chungus Event

Bittube Link



Lets Play

Pokematic Reviews Pickled Petters, Kinda

Pokematic Reviews Pickle Rick Pickle

 

Bittube Link