>>24930

Surprised you didn't get around to Once Upon A Time in Hollywood. It's such wonderful, tense, ridiculous wish fulfillment and a really brilliant meta-statement on violence in film. It might sort of encapsulate Tarantino's career to me.

I intend to get around to Jackie Brown at some point, since apparently it's the one time Tarantino did something a bit more mature and talky.

>>24931

Yeah, I was going basically in order of "how long is it since the last time I saw this one", so Unce Upon A Time In Hollywood will likely be the last one I get around to.

That was the first one I actually managed to go and see in the cinema, though, and I remember it very fondly. I liked the fact it told a much more personal story about two mates and how life changes and moves on, rather than his usual plots about thugs and lowlifes. It was a much warmer film than his others.

>>24930
I really like Hateful Eight. That could be because it's almost tailor made for me; revisionist Western, beautiful nature shots, being cold, anything to with The Thing nand it's completely fucking miserable. However, it does look a bit weird on my telly because it was filmed in a super-widescreen format, but that's tough shit. Art shouldn't care about my wants and needs.

It was National Something Or Other Day yesterday, so the cinema near me was doing tickets for £3. We decided to go and see Oppenheimer, which was one of those films where you're interested in seeing it, but not quite sure if you want to see it in a cinema where you'll have to hold in a piss for 3 hours or risk missing a vital piece of story information; but at 3 quid why not. Anyway as it turns out, people will actually go to the cinema if you bring tickets down to the kind of money they're actually worth, and every single screening was booked up until 10pm. So, fine, late night movie it is.

I shared a moment of bonding with the blokes either side of me, who each also had their missus out cold against their shoulder by about half an hour in, profound understanding expressed in the "what are they like, eh?" eye roll as the lights came back up, and we had to nudge the womenfolk awake and pretend nobody saw them flat out sleep through the whole fucking thing.

Anyway the film itself was pretty good, certainly better than the last bag of shite Nolan curled out. Lots of "Oh it's that guy!" moments because it has actors you've seen in other things but wouldn't know by name, and the big ones are cast in roles that really allowed them to blend in, which you don't often see. Iron Man is made to look very old and different, and I didn't even recognise Matt Damon for half the movie because he has a moustache.

What I liked is how it spends about as much time focusing on American McCarthy era commie paranoia as it does on the development of the atomic bomb, and uses the character study of Oppenheimer himself as a way to demonstrate just how much of an effect the machinery of American politics had in shaping the post-nuclear world. I'd say, however, that it does kind of rely on the viewer understanding a lot of the stuff already, or else it might fly over their head, but then again it's not integral to the movie, it still has a solid story about a bloke being framed as a traitor because he pissed off the wrong people even if you don't grasp the history behind it.

Out of all Nolan's movies it reminded me of The Prestige the most. The science is all glossed over, it's treated as merely a plot device, for what is really a feud between two men, with a reveal late in the film that you might well already have pieced together if you were paying attention.

The big explosion bit was a let down though. They try to do it all artistically, but really it was the cinematic equivalent of edging, but done badly, so the timing is all wrong and you just end up with an unsatisfying ruined orgasm. I can let it off because obviously it was an intelligent movie nit a big explosion movie, but still.

I am unsure how I felt about this film. Despite being based on a true story, I found the relationship between the two leads unconvincing. Because Leo di Capri Sun's character Ernest is such a completely evil bastard, and a fucking idiot, that any affection he expresses towards his wife rings hollow, but the character doesn't appear to realise that himself. It also makes his wife, Mollie, look like something of an idiot by assosiciation, rather than breathtakingly understanding as was I think the intent. In reality I suspect the dynamic between the two was much more straightforwardly abusive, but that is speculation on my part Regardless, after that scene where he sends Anna away about a third of the way into the film, I would have been glad to see Ernest slow garrotted to death in a filthy ditch. However, he keeps crying and moaning like I'm supposed to feel any differently about him, while becoming an even more loathesome person.

It was also the first and only time I have eaten a pork pie in a cinema.

I watched that Everything Everywhere All At Once one last night. I thought it was pretty overrated in the end, considering how I heard so many people rave about it. Ended up being a pretty trite sentimental story, just dressed up in what seemed to be not much more than a thin plot excuse for as much 2000s era "lolrandom XD" shit as possible.

Like, I guess I can see the appeal, and I can understand what people like about it I guess, but it didn't come off in a good way for me.

Pretty good film, but it's ultimately being carried by Richard E. Grant's brilliant performance. That's not a bad thing, as the whole film's about him, or rather he's a vessel for the whole him. As in if you cut basically everyone else out of the film, you'd still get the gist of it.

According to the Channel 4 website you can watch it there for just another FIVE(!) hours, so hop to it, because according to this thread, noone here actually watches films.

Mad God is a very, very surreal stop motion animated movie made by the bloke who is famous for animating ED-209 in Robocop. It's roughly what you would get if The Neverhood/Skullmonkeys was set in the Warhammer 40k universe, and Klayman was in the Death Korps of Krieg. It's a Tool music video that's an hour and a half long.

People have described it as horror, and it is very bleak, but it I also found it quite funny and charming in places. It is very much a love letter to the medium. I think a lot of the horror aspect mainly comes from the inherently uncanny valley feeling of stop motion animation, but the film entirely leans on that as a strength and maximises the wierdness. Really the weakest parts are the places where suddenly it has real human actors and even the odd bit of CGI here and there, which feels a bit jarring, and to me kind of cheapened the effect, but it never allows anything to feel anywhere approaching normal.

There's not much to say about the plot, because it has no dialogue, and is very open to interpretation. The storytelling is entirely visual and I think you could be forgiven for just interpreting it as a series of weird visual scenes slapped together. Either way the central themes of the movie are utterly nihilistic. It seems to portray a cycle of creation, death, and rebirth where seemingly the sole purpose of existence itself is suffering. There is relatively long scene where people made of literal shit are repeatedly and unceremoniously killed as they toil on pointless and extremely hazardous tasks, and their faecal splatter remains scooped up to be fed into bio-mechanical beings that endlessy defecate into the machinery that produces more shit people.

It's certainly not subtle. And yet, its not a complete downer, as the central characters appear to be intent on breaking the cycle, so in that way I actually interpreted it as quite optimistic.

Anyway it's probably either very much Your Kind Of Thing, or you'll think it's complete bollocks. If you find it hard to pay attention with the lack of dialogue, it would probably go very well with a playlist of late 90s/early 2000s industrial like Nine Inch Nails or Rammstein.

Mama mia! This whole film's a mess.

Ugly as sin, the whole thing looks like a perfume advert, very regressive gender poltics, with the two female leads being a Madonna and a whore respectively, in fact the whole thing comes across as strangely reactionary, despite having a terribly on the nose Trump-a-like character who meets the same fate as Mussolini, and no one's acting in the same film. If that last point doesn't make sense, trust me when I say you'd know it if you saw it. On top of all that I had to behold Jon Voight grabbing Aubrey Plaza's arse and giving it a shake, so that's seared in from now until I'm dead.

The only positive thing I can really say is that I laughed from beginning to end. I hope the other two oddballs in the cinema to watch this thing at a 9am showing weren't pissed off, because I'm not lying when I tell you that my mirth was audible. It was so bad I had to take a moment to collect myself after leaving the screening.

I genuinely recommend going to watch it, if only so I can talk to one of you about and feel slightly less like I wasted my money and time.

I finally watched Dune 2: The Twin Towers. It was pretty good. Better than the first one because more actually happens, and I think it still had the same strong visual style and just overall pleasant watchability as the first one.

But what's really confirmed, for me, is how bland of a pairing this source material is, with a director as boringly competent as Denee Veelnuh. It's completely sterile. There isn't an ounce of soul to it. It's technically very competent and there's nothing to really criticise about it, but it's just boring. This is a sci-fi universe so out there that only Moorecock wrote anything wackier, this is the setting Warhammer 40K copied most of it's homework from. And Veeluh manages to make it fucking boring.

I can kind of see the rationale here. Game of Thrones IN SPAAAACE is a solid premise, but the problem is that the characters and the actual plot itself are the weakest parts of Dune. Sidelining the worldbuilding and setting is a decision that will appeal to fart sniffing wankers who are reviewing your movie in the papers, but it's a waste of potential for anyone who actually likes sci-fi.

It even manages to waste Christopher Walken. Great casting, but he gets absolutely nothing to work with. That said, Timothy Chamois is coming along very nicely as an actor, he definitely steps up for this. Highlight of the film is probably this chap on the poster. Delightfully charismatic sadist baddie, who completely upstages Gorilla Man Bautista from the first one.

>>25156

I did watch this film earlier tonight. It was brilliant. Refreshingly small-scale, unambiguous, and actually funny. It put me in touch again with why I hate adertising so much. It wasn't heavy-handed or mean-spirited or cynical, even though it does feature cynical characters, In fact, the core message was surprisngly sincere. It feels so rare to watch a measured piece of fiction with a purpose, with a writer that wasn't hedging their bets.

Richard E. Grant's performance is perfect in it. Part slapstick, part actual-mental-breakdown, you alternately laugh and sympathise with him.

Even the special effects have that excellent 1980s quality to them, being really well done as practical effects and slightly grotty.

It's maybe a cliche to say, too, but it really does bear on the modern day alarmingly well, too. The issues haven't changed, only intensified. I don't want to spoil one of the best lines in the film, but his point about "Our bombs contain a secret ingredient: Peace" just hit far too close to home for me.

Thanks for the recommendation.

>>25156
>>25393
I think I have a bit of a crush on Richard Grant; he has a wonderful expressiveness. As for the film itself, it's interesting enough but I must lack the intelligence to really understand the message - boo false advertising at the cost of za warudo, followed by some weird monologue doubling down on the exploitivity(?) and celebration of advertising?

The penultimate scene with the two Grants talking via the TV videotape was good. There were a few missed beats in the dialog as I processed what was happening, but it was a satisfying, even suprising, callback.

Grants earlier act of insanity was a touch on the nose.

>>25405

The story is about a man working in advertising on the surface, but beneath that, it's a critique of the "greed is good" philosophy underlying our current economic system and how it tends to commodify every aspect of human life. This is why Grant's character takes it to its logical extreme in his recorded VHS panic attack: he's screaming that even the air we breathe will eventually be bought and sold (and advertised) as a commodity. It may seem absurd, but he's someone that's been dedicating the bulk of his working life extolling the importance of a pimple cream and other crushingly mundane goods, so it seems plausible to him.

The film hints at alternatives, e.g. when Grant's character is arguing with his alter ego on the hospital bed, and they're discussing whether people should buy a car (i.e. individualistic, profitable) or take the train (i.e. collective and planned) when they travel. The alter ego suggests that people "hate the train", using free market rhetoric to justify personal gain. When it's suggested that the public might like trains more with the right approach, he dismisses it as "fucking communism".

The most subtle line in the film is definitely Julia's quiet expression of doubt in the penultimate scene. When the alter ego suggests he's just giving people "what they want", and not acknowledging how crass and manipulative a force advertising is, she simply responds, "what if it's not?". That line, and her decision to leave at the end, is a nice reinforcement that we have the choice not to listen and to think of alternative ways of living, not what advertising insists. The end scene then plays as a straight farce, the alter ego character lays out his stunningly shallow view of the world with all of its wastefulness and stupidity as Grant skips up and down fields what is essentially an advertisement for capitalism.

This was my essay, thank you for reading.

As an aside: I gently disagree about the earlier "insane" act that Grant puts on. I think that sort of silliness and slapstick draws people in and makes the film more of a comedy. It would be a very different film (probably too dry and dour) if it were a more "serious" depiction of a mental breakdown. My partner and I really liked the setup and were laughing out loud at it. I think it's a testament to Grant as an actor that he could make that so funny but then be so genuinely moving during his recorded video.

Another aside: the first thing that popped into my mind when thinking of films to compare it to is Fight Club, which is basically the more macho, Americanised, convoluted, and CGI-laden variation on a very similar premise. Maybe American Psycho, to a lesser extent. In retrospect, I actually like this specifically British take on the genre quite a lot.

Final aside: Rachel Ward is extraordinarily pretty in this.

Going back to the OP, I haven't actually watched The Matrix since release. Does it still hold up, and considering the world today, is it more relevant?

>>25411
Eh, I watch the trillogy about 3 times a year, wouldn't say it's any more relevant now than it ever was, though I'm not a particularly informed individual nor perceptive to media themes.
The CGI in Revolutions (2) doesn't hold up at all.

I just watched Society (1989) and very much want to talk about it with someone, but it's also the kind of film that's far more enjoyable if you don't know what's going to happen.

So, if you're going to watch it, don't look up reviews, don't do image searches, don't look at plot synposes, just watch it. All I'll say outside of spoilers is that it's a horror mystery that was ahead of its time in many ways.

No, really, watch it first. Okay, it's one of those films that made me both genuinely uneasy and also laugh uproarously. Yes, it's visually disgusting, and the imagery will certainly stay with me. I wish they had dropped the "plonking" 80s comedy stings, not to remove the humour entirely, but more to let the tension build a bit. As it is, I feel like absolute madness of the ending wasn't built up enough, and felt a bit blindsiding. That said, those last 30 minutes really do feel like a nightmare, it's really well done.

The satirical message is straightforward but not unwelcome. It's not subtle, but it's not preachy or insistent. In fact, I'd describe the tone of the film as "confused and disgusted", like the fever dream of someone who is generally upset with decadent wealth. The satire might have had a bit more impact if they showed more of Billy's friendship with his less well-off friend, or maybe making a few offhand comments about how he likes living with money, but he "wonders where it all comes from", or something similar.

>>25435
>Society (1989)
Yeah I'll take a look sometime next week, thanks for the recommendation.
Here's a link for anyone else interested - https://archive.org/details/society_20240229

>>25435
The plants on the table at one minute and ten seconds into the film are birds of paradise flowers.

>>25437

Not sure I get the significance of this. Is it something I missed?

>>25438

It's not at all significant but unless you ID'd the flowers yourself then you did miss it.

There was some pampas grass not long after that.

>>25439

/v/ - Horticulture

>>25440

There were some fantastic succulents in series 1 of Foundation.

I'm Gonna Git You Sucka is a fun blaxploitation parody film if you've got a spare 80 minutes to waste. In honesty it's a bit shit, but there numerous 'cameos' of recognisable actors when they were young and a fair few decent frameworks of jokes.

I'm developing a sincere enthusiasm for exploitation films, particularly parodies. They tend to be full of atmosphere and larger than life characters, and generally seem to offer a more believable representation of life in the era than other films I've encountered.

https://archive.org/details/im-gonna-git-you-sucka-1988


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWNQTqMkezc

>>25442
It also has Chris Rock's first ever film appearance, and his youthful pestering of Isaac Hayes is one of the best parts of the film in my opinion.

>>25442
Also, I was into blaxploitation parodies a few years ago, and I have some DVDs on my shelf of a full three different such films. In my opinion, you really need to watch Black Dynamite, because it's brilliant, while Undercover Brother is probably about equally as good as I'm Gonna Git You Sucka. I haven't seen Dolemite; have you? Is it good?

>>25435
The film is utterly bizarre. How the fuck did you find it?

Apart from the ending, what bothered me most were the numerous loose ends in the narrative. The main character is framed as experiencing hallucinations but nothing appears to be done with it. It's also hinted that he's adopted which is resolved offhand toward the end, as though it was only ever covering an issue of the plot. And what's the deal with that big dumb woman? In one scene I thought the actor was wearing a prostheitc mask but it turned out to be their actual face (pictured) - what the fuck? I guess she might be a reference to aristocratic inbreeding or unvarrying genetics regardless of class.

I didn't understand the upper class to be 'shape shifters' as Wikipedia suggests (Read post viewing, thanks for your thoughtful use of spoilers), instead thought the whole ending scene was some abstraction for the viewer rather than reality for the characters. I would have much prefered the group to have literally eaten the captives, atleast then I could have got off to it.
I was half expecting a big reveal of the main character being carted off in a straight jacket while the elites are back to normal and his 'eaten' friend looks on in concern, but no, you just get a shitty joke.

The effects themselves were good and I enjoyed the horror sound effects, but the soundtrack and 'plonking' as you say jarred horribly. Were the film played a bit more seriously i reckon it could have been alright - it's certainly sexy enough.

It reminds me somewhat of Brazil, only shit.

>>25445

IMDb suggests the whole film was just written as an excuse to do the special effects. It doesn't add anything about the plants sadly.

Can you recommend some films set in and around the interwar period? WWI inclusive but not necessarily war films. Films set in and around Spain might be best, but not exclusively.

>>25455

Paths of Glory is one of my favourite films of all time. It's set during WWI, but speaks to timeless themes.

>>25455
Pan's Labyrinth is set in 1944, but I thought it was set earlier than that so perhaps you'd be willing to consider it. Assuming you haven't seen it already, of course.

>>25455
El Sur is set around 1950 I think but you must watch it those are your tastes. There's also a very good but very dark and unredeeming Italian film about WWI called Uomini Contro (the English title of which is 'Many Wars Ago').

>>25456
>>25457
>>25459
Cheers lads, I'll give them a watch or rewatch as appropriate. More still welcome.

I feel like I should make an effort to watch David Lynch's filmography, given that I have read/watched a lot of guff about him recently what with him turning up dead and that. Trouble is I just don't think I like him (as a director I mean, I've never met him) that much.

Even when I was a pretentious stoner and psychedelic dabbler in my mid 20s, for whom the trippy surreal shit should have been right up my street, I bounced off of Eraserhead two or three times and never made it more than about half an hour in. Similar to Terry Gilliam's Brazil, I think I just struggle with it because it seems so loose and unstructured, just a sequence of events that happen rather than a narrative.

I get on a lot better with David Cronenburg's style of surrealism, which feels a lot more cohesive. His films are weird but they are internally consistent in their weirdness, they always have a sort of disorienting dreamlike narrative but it's still a clearly defined narrative. And they also have loads more sex and violence, which I tend to prefer.

I think that's the issue really, Lynch's work is usually too arty for me, and that's not because I don't like arty stuff, but because I like art to be vulgar and crass in defiance of that poncy pretentious concept of art.

>>25467
Blue Velvet has some sexy bits. Have you seen that?

And Twin Peaks has plenty of consistent narrative, although it is the nature of TV series to be much longer than films, so you’d be taking a risk, even though I love it. Watch out for the third series that was made a few years ago; I predict you will despise that. I hated most of it, but I really loved a couple of parts which are exactly what you said you don’t like.

>>25467
>Even when I was a pretentious stoner and psychedelic dabbler in my mid 20s, for whom the trippy surreal shit should have been right up my street
If this is the mindset you're approaching David Lynch films with, then no, don't bother. I'm not even his biggest fan or anything, but you sound like kind of a fucking numpty.

>>25471

Everyone was a numpty in their 20s, at least some of us have the capacity to be self aware about it.

>>25467

I'd suggest giving Eraserhead another chance. The plot is extremely barebones, deliberately, but the themes it deals with and the visuals it uses to represent them are pretty compelling.

It's one of those films I had massively different reactions to with a difference of age. As an edgy teenager, a lot of the surrealism and unpleasantness came off as comedic. As an adult, it seems more nightmarish and exposes genuine vulnerabilities. Basically, my attitude towards it changed completely with my own proximity to fatherhood and all its attendant fears. What seemed like an impenetrable film about a general anxiety towards biology, family life, and the high stakes of adulthood back then all of a sudden becomes very real when... well, you're at the mercy of biology, family life, and high stakes of adulthood.

Another mini-film review: I watched After Hours, tonight.

It's one of Scorsese's lesser known films, and from what I understand he picked up the script from another director and completed it while waiting to begin work on The Last Temptation of Christ.

If anyone is familiar with the absolute train wreck film Ryan's Babe, After Hours is like the competent version of that story: an average guy makes a mundane decision (in this case, going to meet up with a nice girl he struck up a conversation with earlier that day) that takes him down a strange path filled with eccentric people and odd coincidences.

I enjoyed it. Anyone who's had a bad night out should be able to sympathise with protagonist Paul's exhaustion and panic. Even though it's labelled a comedy, Scorsese sets the film in a very grimy-feeling 80s New York, somewhere you could believe the characters from The Warriors are running around causing chaos, so that it does at points feel dangerous and unsettling. The only straight "comedy" parts involve the burglars, played by Cheech & Chong, who seem really out of place.

The issue is that it almost feels a bit beneath Scorsese. You have this brilliant motif running throughout the film of being trapped or captured, like Julie's mousetraps around her bed or Kiki's elaborately bound hands during her BDSM session with her partner, that suggests he's maybe hinting that sex invariably leads to entanglement and peril. Beyond that, though, there doesn't seem to be a deeper meaning past "be careful when wishing for excitement". The film ends with a very cool dynamic shot showing Paul where he started, but I can't help but wonder if the film might have been improved with just a line or two extra. Paul is teaching another person how to use word processing software, the student expresses dissatisfaction and boredom, Paul wearily replies that you should appreciate peace when you have it. Or maybe I'm just nitpicking and wishing for meaning in what is just a fun, weird tale.

Support the Girls is a comedy/drama about some women who work in a restaurant that is legally distinct from Hooters but is just Hooters really. I had never heard of it, but I discovered it for free on streaming platform Tubi, and it played a little clip of it which was hilarious. So I made a point to watch the whole thing.

It's not all as good as the clip, but the characters are likable and there are multiple funny moments. For free, it's definitely worth watching. Apparently Andrew Bujalski, who wrote and directed it, is known for making ballets where everyone just mumbles and you can't make out what anyone's saying, so it's good to know it's not just me. It adds to the low-budget realism, but I can't say I'm a fan of feeling like I'm missing half the plot. In many ways, perhaps this ballet is not amazing, but if you discover it on your own and you've never heard of it, your standards will be lower and you will absolutely love it.

>>25543
>known for making ballets
Hey, a new wordfilter! I assume it's new. I don't watch many ballets - fuck - f*lms.

This also gives me an opportunity to add to my previous post the answer to the question you're all thinking: it is approximately as good as Coyote Ugly.

>>25543
I just watched it. What was the funny part?

>>25546
The opening scene where the woman arrives for the job interview is the bit I'm referring to.
>Hi, I'm here for the job interview
>Oh! You're early. We like that, haha
>Cool. Am I hired then?
For all I know, this is an ancient line that people use all the time, but I've never heard it before and it really tickled me.

>>25548
The knob gag was disapointing. Might have been better if all but the last knob only went up to ten - baiting you into confusion sorta thing. Or one of the dude used a wrench to literally crack the knob further, damaging the amp and keeping in vibe with the bands level of dumbness.

>>25548
So a load of self-referential shite then.

I'm only 35 but sociecty has already changed so much. At the cinema today, first time in years. I was among a mob of roaring autistic retards, clapping and yelling all throughout the emotional triumps of the ballet as they can't contain their excitement. My sister says many spectactualr ballet showings are like that these days. I even saw a couple of trans kids, or atleast strangely/cross dressed. What the fuck is going on? Keep up or be left behind, I guess.

Anyway, A Minecraft musical theatre is almost entirely forgettable. It's a ballet for kids - my nephew enjoyed it, I think. The generic plot is slapped between minecraft montages. And that's about it. I can't remember any character names. Oh, appart from Chungus - which got a huge roar from the meme crowd.
The way the zombies move is distinctly CGI over body-motion capture in a way so obvious it's slightly unnerving. Maybe it was all the squares moving in circular motion.

>>25554

Personally I just can't get over how they made the creepers fluffy. They are obviously cactuses, not some kind of weird cat. It's incredible how videogames have quite literally eclipsed Hollywood as a market altogether in terms of cultural relevance and profitability in the last decade, but we still get these adaptations made by people who seem to have only read the Wikipedia, or at best, TVTropes entry for a franchise.

I kind of want to see the Minecraft motion picture to see how bad it is, but I won't be doing so until I can torrent it. This weekend however I shall be watching the Sonic the Hedgehog ones, because I remember the first one fondly (even after all the forced meme nonsense about his weird teeth) but never realised they somehow snuck another two out behind my back while I was busy with on and off class A drug addiction.

>>25555
>They are obviously cactuses, not some kind of weird cat.
It's probably because they hiss, which incidentally I didn't hear any of in the ballet possibly because of all the fucking audience noise.

What I'll say in positive of the ballet though is that the use of colour was very effective in defusing the tension from the mildly horrible scenes. I could imagine being a child reassured by the friendly, safe bold colours of the main lead characters after being scared of the shadowy and dark pig/zombie scenes.

>I kind of want to see the Minecraft motion picture to see how bad it is
To be honest it's not exactly bad, it's just a forgettable, a colourful memey kids ballet. And that's it. There're some hamfisted emotional scenes that grated horribly but maybe I'm just an arsehole.

>they somehow snuck another two out behind my back while I was busy with on and off class A drug addiction.
Dude I'm on the net every single day and didn't hear a thing about Sonic 2 & 3. Is Rouge in it yet? Is she voiced by a sexy latina milf or what?

>>25556

I believe they have followed the original Megadrive game sequence so we have sonic, Tails and Knuckles already. Rouge was first in one of the Dreamcast games I think? So there might be another two or three to go, if it gets that far.

I was always more of a Blaze the Cat man myself, mind you. So I might be waiting a while.

Forgot which thread you were talking about Her in, but I just saw the poster for this. It's by Jordan Peele so probably not terrible. I plan to watch assuming it's a sequel.