Kong: Skull Island (2017)

Produced by the same team who brought us Godzilla (2014), Kong: Skull Island is an interesting retelling of the Kong story that brings the iconic monster into a more contemporary setting.  Set during the end of the Vietnam war, alternative researchers Bill Randa (John Goodman) and Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins) petition the government to fund an expedition to an uncharted island, which they believe contains a secret, primeval ecosystem, never seen by man.  To get there, they are granted a military escort, headed by Colonel Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson).  Together with a skilled tracker (Tom Hiddleston) and an outspoken political photojournalist (Brie Larson), they all set off into the mysterious unknown.  Upon their arrival, the group are faced with the dangerous wildlife of Skull Island (not including Kong himself) as well as Hank Marlow (John C. Reilly), who has befriended the natives since being stranded on the island since World War II.  While fighting to survive the destruction of Kong, the team desperately try to reach their arriving rescue team, and escape the dangers of Skull Island.
The thing I like most about Kong: Skull Island is how modern the story feels.  Even though it is set in the 1970s, this take on the story feels fresh in a way that Peter Jackson's version didn't.  There is no mention of New York City here, and many of the other typical Kong tropes are absent.  The film doesn't completely abandon all reference to its origins, however.  There are still a few subtle and not-so-subtle nods to the source material, which I thought were smartly used.  While we're on the subject of theming, this film borrows as much from classic Vietnam movies as much as it does the Kong franchise.  There are many notes from films like Apocalypse Now and Rambo, though but not so many that the movie feels derivative.
I also appreciate the way Skull Island gives the monsters plenty of room to play.  This is a huge contrast with 2014's Godzilla, which did a reasonably good job, but spent too much time with the dull human characters narrating the big monster action fans had paid to see.  The visuals of the film are top notch, with some very creative and memorable creature designs.
My only complaint about the cast is it was perhaps a little too large for everyone to get equal screen time.  There were a few characters I would have liked to see more of, but the various plot threads only allowed for a certain amount of storytelling.  For instance, while Tom Hiddleston may have top billing, I found his character ultimately forgettable.  Of the other players involved, I particularly enjoyed Samuel L. Jackson's intense performance as  Col. Packard.  Being a career military man, Packard has no problem with a new assignment, and decides to start his own personal war with Kong, which results in nothing but trouble for everyone else.  John Goodman is also excellent as Bill Randa, a man who knows for a fact monsters are real, and is eventually proven right.  My praises of the cast wouldn't be complete without the mention of John C. Reilly.  His performance as the grizzled, slightly crazed Hank Marlow steals the show, and is one of the most memorable of the whole movie.
Kong: Skull Island breathes some new life into the old bones of the Kong franchise, and is a great modern interpretation of a classic story.

*There is a small post-credits scene which hints at some possible future films, so make sure to stick around after the show!    

Entertainment (2015)

To begin to understand a film as strange as Entertainment, you first have to understand Neil Hamburger.  Neil Hamburger is the alt-comedian persona of Entertainment star Gregg Turkington.  The closest comparison one can find for his act would be Andy Kaufman's Tony Clifton character.  In short, Neil Hamburger is the most offensively hostile comedian on the planet.  His jokes are either insulting, infantile, or in horrifically bad taste.  When the crowd isn't receptive to his brand of humour, Neil patronizingly urges the audience to 'put a smile on your fool faces'.  If this approach doesn't work, he moves to level two hostility, viciously targeting specific members of the audience with insults until they either retaliate or leave.
Entertainment follows Neil as he tours the Mojave desert, performing at various prisons and dive bars with his opening act, a clown/mime (Tye Sheridan) who specializes in only the crudest jokes possible.  Between shows, Neil takes stops to examine the few interesting areas of the desert, such as an airplane graveyard, or an abandoned car wreck.  He also calls and leaves messages to his estranged daughter each night and keeps her up with how things are going, though it's uncertain if she actually listens to these messages.  John C. Reilly features as Cousin John, who does his best to book shows for Neil, although he has difficulty understanding why he doesn't make his comedy more accessible to people. (much like the viewers themselves)
The cinematography and style of Entertainment owes a lot to the work of Stanley Kubrick.  (The Shining, in particular)  There are a great many long, almost glacially paced scenes, packed with uncomfortable silences from the characters.  One of the defining traits of Neil's character is that he almost never speaks a word when he's not onstage.  This is somewhat frustrating for a viewer who might want to understand his motivations, but I feel that it was a conscious directorial choice.  Another interesting choice is the sound of this film.  Many moments are punctuated with eerie, harsh white noise, which increases the strange feeling of dread and tension this film creates.
All of these stylistic choices add up to Entertainment's ultimate mystery:  why does he do it?  What good reason would a comedian have for sticking to such a controversial act, touring dead-end venues, and aimlessly wandering the desert?  Furthermore, is Neil suffering from a crippling depression, losing his mind, or is he simply bored to death?  Unfortunately, the film provides no true answers to any of these questions.  The film, much like its main character, simply exists.
Entertainment was nothing like what I expected it to be, but I think that's a good thing.  Certain scenes are very uncomfortable to watch, and the main character is barely likeable at all.  That being said, it is still well shot, and demonstrates good technique when it comes to filmmaking.

Chicago (2002)

"In this town, murder's a form of entertainment," says Matron 'Mama' Morton (Queen Latifah) early on in Chicago.  This is a very precise description of the story told in this film.
Set in 1920s Chicago, we are told the story of Roxie Hart (Renee Zelwegger), an aspiring vaudeville actress who accidentally kills a man who promised her fame and fortune.  She's sent to prison where she meets Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones).  Her story is similar, except she's a legitimate vaudeville star, and did the deed on purpose.  Realizing the she's on death row and time is short, Roxie enlists the help of lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere), who will represent anyone for the right price.  As it turns out, Flynn is also defending Velma in court at the same time.  What follows is a dramatic, and often dishonest, battle for fame in the Chicago courtrooms told in the tradition of vaudeville song and dance.
Along with other films like Moulin Rouge, Chicago is responsible for reigniting an interest in musical films.  It also did remarkably well at the 2003 Academy Awards, winning best picture over more serious films like Gangs of New York.
Chicago has an interesting premise, in that the internal dialogue of the characters is told in song and dance.  Vaudeville is central to the plot, and the film uses all the facets of the prohibition-era entertainment to great effect.  Over the course of the film, we see everything from tap-dancing to comedy to ventriloquism.  There's seldom a moment without an accompanying song.
As well as the music, the film borrows some techniques from vaudeville as well.  In place of more high-tech methods, the film makes use of traditional theatrical effects like mirrors, well-placed lighting, and even the use of scarves to simulate blood in one number.  It all works very well together to give the audience the feeling that they're front-row center at a Broadway production.
The cast are all accomplished in acting as well as song and dance.  Some of the choreography Zelwegger and Zeta-Jones perform on top of the acting itself is very impressive.  This film is also enhanced by a top-notch supporting cast.  I particularly liked John C. Reilly as Roxie's husband Amos, a pathetically sad man who has no understanding of what's really happening with Roxie.
As well put together as the film is, I personally found a felt a little let down in the plot department.  There are several potentially interesting plot threads that were left completely unexplored in favour of more musical numbers.  In addition, I felt the ending of the film was essentially the lead-in to an elaborate closing song and dance number.  I was left wanting some more definitive answers about what happened next, but was left to imagine an ending while the credits rolled.
Despite its few shortcomings, I do think Chicago is a good film.  What it lacks in substance, it makes up for in spectacle.  While the musical style may not be for everyone, it has something for just about everyone else.  It's fun and exciting, and captures all the elements of the prohibition era.