Drunken Expat Writer

Man, Rome Girl and I are huge Harry Potter fans and went and saw the new Harry Potter film in English and 3D at the super duper upscale movie theater in the Place de la Comedie and we wanted to love this film and just couldn't.

God - this film was so fucking "meh" - neither bad nor good.

The main problem is - "Why the fuck was this film in 3D????"

With the exception of the Voldemort death they don't do anything interesting with the 3D at all. And, it was not for lack of chances. There are tons of scenes that would have benefited from cool 3D effects.

For example - every scene involving the dragon, the snake or the weird roller coaster in the bank. In at least one of those scenes one of those objects should have jumped out of the screen into my face.

Let me put it this way - before the movie started Haribo had a 3D ad for gummy bears that used 3D more effectively than anything in the Harry Potter movie - and I'm guessing that the Harry Potter movie had more money to pay for creative people than a candy company did.

In other words if you want to see the Harry Potter film and your local theater gives you the choice between 2D or 3D don't pay the extra money for the 3D.

What this film did do for me is remind me why I was so annoyed by the second half of the last Harry Potter book. I can't blame the film makers for most of the flaws in this film. They are just using the source material.

In the first six books Hermione and Ron are built up as the most important characters other than Harry. Therefore in the film they get second and third billing.

But, they don't have very much to do in this book so they end up just sitting in the frame in lots of scenes and kind of being like "Hey, we are characters you like and we are still here! Sorry that other characters that you were less invested in get to do the things that advance the plot - but at least you see us in the frame!"

What I do blame the producers for is completely ignoring and not showing Ginny organizing the underground revolt at Hogwarts - because without that Harry suddenly realizing he loves her makes no sense.

And the Bellatrix Lestrange death scene should have been much more dramatic than it was given that she's pretty much the most interesting villain other than He Who Can Not Be Named.

Anyway, overall I give it a B-Minus when I've given every other Harry Potter film an A-Plus.

Strangling Hall & Oates fans.

After dinner last night Rome Girl and I downloaded John Carpenter's The Thing. I hadn't seen it in about a decade and I'm glad I got motivated to check it out again.

It's everything the last Harry Potter film isn't. It moves forward at a steady pace, explains exactly what it needs to explain and leaves some stuff up in the air and creates a feeling of menace that lingers for hours after you are done with it.

Best of all, unlike a lot of the new horror films it takes its time. Carpenter trusts that the audience doesn't need a gotcha moment every four minutes. It's every bit as gory as a Saw film, but the moments of gore and revulsion come out at you when you don't expect it and are true grotesque.

Anyway, just figured I'd throw that out there for anyone who hasn't seen The Thing. It's an oldie but a goodie.

An interesting debate has broken out on Gawker.

The deal is that a straight guy in the United States tried to give blood and was turned down because he "looked gay." Now, the debate isn't about that. It's about the fact that men who have had sex with men even once since 1978 can't give blood ever (which pretty much means no gay or bisexual man in America can give blood.)

One side says that's a bullshit rule because blood is screened anyway and straight people can get HIV just as easily as gay people and if you've been tested you should be able to give blood no matter who you fuck.

The other side says that the HIV screening for blood is far from perfect and there is a risk/reward ratio going on. Yes, blood centers need more blood, but the chances of infected blood getting through would rise quite a bit if gay/bisexual men where allowed to give blood. One commentator who claims to be a doctor says this: "A UK study found that instituting a 10 year deferral policy (basically, excluding any man who has had sex with men within 10 years) would only increase the risk of HIV entering the blood supply by 2%. The same study found that decreasing the deferral period to 1 year increases the risk by 60%, and completely removing the discriminatory policy increases the risk by 500%."

What do you think?