The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban'.
My little girl is stuck on part of Harry Potter. She has to capture fairies and return them to the school. How does she catch them>? She can shoot them down but not collect them off the ground. Help!!!!!!
Page:
And the fact that you totally contradicted yourself means nothing to you?
E-Beerdeeds wrote:
> You really are so retarded it's infuriating. I mean Stridman find you
> stupid.
>
> though admittidly he isn't what he once was...at times.
Hmmm, another uncalled for insult. Can't get your point across any other way. SAD LOSER.
> You really are so retarded it's infuriating. I mean Stridman find you
> stupid.
>
> though admittidly he isn't what he once was...at times.
Hmmm, another uncalled for insult. Can't get your point across any other way. SAD LOSER.
How do you expect a film to cover a whole bloody book you idiot? It did it's best and that was damn good.
Stridman wrote:
>
> The film was like 3 hours long and from what i've read the film has
> covered everything the book mentions.
Still felt very rushed. Judging by the width of the 4th book, it would probably be better to just make it a clip show.
>
> The film was like 3 hours long and from what i've read the film has
> covered everything the book mentions.
Still felt very rushed. Judging by the width of the 4th book, it would probably be better to just make it a clip show.
You really are so retarded it's infuriating. I mean Stridman find you stupid.
though admittidly he isn't what he once was...at times.
though admittidly he isn't what he once was...at times.
Unfortunately I have and it absolutely sucked beyond all belief.
Chr1s wrote:
> E-Beerdeeds wrote:
> Errrrm, not in my opinion no. And please exaplin to me how a movie
> that's based on a book 3 odd years before is a rushed storyline?
> Please?
>
> What I meant and what you seem to have misunderstood, is that the
> film progressed through the story too fast and too shoddily in order
> to fit it all in to a reasonable length.
The film was like 3 hours long and from what i've read the film has covered everything the book mentions.
> E-Beerdeeds wrote:
> Errrrm, not in my opinion no. And please exaplin to me how a movie
> that's based on a book 3 odd years before is a rushed storyline?
> Please?
>
> What I meant and what you seem to have misunderstood, is that the
> film progressed through the story too fast and too shoddily in order
> to fit it all in to a reasonable length.
The film was like 3 hours long and from what i've read the film has covered everything the book mentions.
Chr1s wrote:
> How do wooden acting and a rushed story line constitute an excellent
> film?
Your so bloody annoying. The current Harry Potter film was great, I bet you haven't even seen it. Fool.
> How do wooden acting and a rushed story line constitute an excellent
> film?
Your so bloody annoying. The current Harry Potter film was great, I bet you haven't even seen it. Fool.
E-Beerdeeds wrote:
> Errrrm, not in my opinion no. And please exaplin to me how a movie
> that's based on a book 3 odd years before is a rushed storyline?
> Please?
What I meant and what you seem to have misunderstood, is that the film progressed through the story too fast and too shoddily in order to fit it all in to a reasonable length. Nothing at all to do with the book.
> Errrrm, not in my opinion no. And please exaplin to me how a movie
> that's based on a book 3 odd years before is a rushed storyline?
> Please?
What I meant and what you seem to have misunderstood, is that the film progressed through the story too fast and too shoddily in order to fit it all in to a reasonable length. Nothing at all to do with the book.
Errrrm, not in my opinion no. And please exaplin to me how a movie that's based on a book 3 odd years before is a rushed storyline? Please?
Page: