free counter with statistics Pirate Radio Review | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

movie-pirate_radio-stills-366372227.jpg
Overwhelmed by Indifference and the Promise of an Early Bed


Pirate Radio / Dustin Rowles

Film Reviews | November 12, 2009 | Comments (41)


You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

What the fuck is that expression supposed to even mean? What good is a cake if you can’t eat it? It seems to me, if you’ve got a cake, and you can’t eat it, then it’s no use to you. It’s just interminable temptation. It’s better to have no cake at all, damnit.

Richard Curtis’ Pirate Radio represents something of the inverse of that expression: It’s way too much cake, you’ve got to eat it all, and there’s no goddamn milk to wash it down with. There’s enough sugar in Pirate Radio to trigger a collective coma in a ship load of apathetic diabetics. The first few bites are decent enough, but then you begin to realize that the icing is nothing but sweetened vegetable shortening obscuring the flavorless cake-like substance, and all it does is leaving you craving vegetables. Imagine that as a movie poster blurb: “Pirate Radio: Inspires a craving for sprouts!”

Released to a mixed reception last year in England (as The Boat the Rocked), Pirate Radio has had an additional 20 minutes removed from the UK version (which, itself, had had nearly an hour edited out of the original cut) and yet, even the US version is stretches your patience. An occasional musical montage can be effective in a lot of movies to lighten the tone or speed a transition, but Pirate Radio feels more like a tremendously long musical montage interrupted occasionally by the narrative, which doesn’t amount to much in the end.

In typical Curtis fashion, Pirate Boat’s ensemble is far too large to give anyone anything more than a one-note personality — and for most of the characters, that note revolves around how often or not he or she gets laid (save for the lone female (Katherine Robinson) aboard the ship, who is — shocking! — a lesbian). Nick Frost is cheeky; Rhys Darby is randy; Tom Brooke is thick (in fact, his character’s name is Thick Kevin); Rhys Ifans is the rebellious rocker-type (signified by the leather jacket); Jack Davenport is no more dimensional than his character name, Twatt; Kenneth Branagh is a humorless sourpus; and Gemma Arterton, Emma Thompson, and January Jones aren’t even in the film long enough to acquire a one-note personality. Only Bill Nighy — as the pirate station’s owner — and Phillip Seymour Hoffman — as the main DJ, Yank the Count — manage to do much with their characters, and it’s only through the sheer will of their own personalities, in spite of toneless script. It’s also nice to see Phillip Seymour Hoffman in a feel-good movie rather than another dreary indie drama that makes you want to blow your brains out with a shotgun blast into your ass.

The plot, such as it is, concerns this motley-merry band of flat conforming anti-conformist characters riding around on a ship off the coast of England airing a rock n’ roll radio station so as to avoid the strict BBC regulations. The only real narrative driving force aboard the ship — where they remain for the entirety of the movie — is trying to rid the virgin (Tom Sturridge, the main character, though you’d hardly know it) of his affliction, a la Almost Famous. Meanwhile, Branagh’s grumpy Sir Alistair Dormandy and his assistant, Twatt, represent the hostile government forces, and spend what little screen time they have attempting to shut down the pirate radio station (a subplot that trails off into nothing). The rest of it is a messy, unstructured series of ’60s rock songs, a few dance sequences, and — too often — sentimental confessions of affection for one another that all leads toward a daffy Titanic-lite finale.

There’s really not much else to Pirate Radio, though it certainly has its share of sweet moments (too many, perhaps) and if you’re into ’60s nostalgic rock, it’s an easy movie to experience. It’s light and fluffy, edgeless, and completely frivolous, but like Curtis’ previous movie, Love, Actually, it’s inoffensive and exuberant enough to keep your mindlessly preoccupied. At least until the sweetness tickles your gag reflex and your left sitting with a puddle of your own cake upchuck.


John Cusack Is Jack | Pajiba Love 11/12/09



Comments

The expression is actually "You can't EAT your cake and HAVE it too." Nobody seems to ever get it right, which is too bad since it actually makes some fucking sense.
Sort of like the constant misuse of 'Begs the question.'
{irritate}

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at November 12, 2009 12:13 PM

The assistant's name is Twatt? Seriously? That's subtle.

...makes you want to blow your brains out with a shotgun blast into your ass. GodDAMN, that's an ugly image! I'm eatin' lunch here!

The "craving for sprouts" line is hysterical. It's too bad the movie sucks; I saw the preview before Zombieland and it looked funny, particularly when he's about to swear and warns the listeners, "Here it comes! Ffffffffff......" The delivery cracked me up.

Posted by: DeadBessie at November 12, 2009 12:17 PM

"The only real narrative driving force aboard the ship — where they remain for the entirety of the movie — is trying to rid the virgin (Tom Sturridge, the main character, though you’d hardly know it) of his affliction"

Hire a prostitute. How fucking hard can that be? (Pardon the pun.)

Posted by: BWeaves at November 12, 2009 12:18 PM

Musical Montage, montages even?

I thought those went away with the last Bring it On installment. Is Hayden Panettiere in this?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 12, 2009 12:24 PM

Funny, all the commercials make it look like it's centered on Hoffman's character and his struggle against "The Man" or some such to keep operating his radio station. I suspect many people will be surprised to find out otherwise, because that sounds like a marginally interesting movie about censorship and social progress. What's described above sounds like a dull coming of age tale that I'm not interested in.

Posted by: Intern Rusty at November 12, 2009 12:31 PM

I cannot watch Phillip Seymour Hoffman anymore. He looks like my Ex husband. Every time he gets all whiny or depressed in a movie I want scream "Man up BITCH!!!" and shake him violently.
He really doesn't deserve that kind of treatment.

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at November 12, 2009 12:31 PM

You need to get down with a real man.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 12, 2009 12:37 PM

I was slightly disappointed after reading this review, then I noticed it's from the creators of "Notting Hill" and "Love Actually" and it all made sense. At least the soundtrack is decent?

Posted by: Mae at November 12, 2009 12:38 PM

What a shame. I was an avid follower of news about Radio Caroline's efforts to thwart the BBC's ridiculous efforts to "ban" all rock music from the airwaves and was looking forward to what might have been an interesting movie about those folks.
Sigh.
More fuckery on the high seas.

Posted by: Spender at November 12, 2009 12:43 PM

You need to get down with a real man.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 12, 2009 12:37 PM

Did you see the 'Ex' part?
Believe me baby, my(new) SO is as real as they come. He isn't scared of me At ALL, which is saying something,because I am kind of a tough broad.
I intentionally married a wuss so I could run the show. It worked for a while, until he got all 'Garden State'.

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at November 12, 2009 12:50 PM

Sort of like the constant misuse of 'Begs the question.'

Better watch that shit. Writers 'round here will call that a tired argument. Apparently "tired" mean "logically sound" in these parts.

Posted by: pissant at November 12, 2009 12:50 PM

They are only tired of it because they have ALL made the error and don't want to deal with it.

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at November 12, 2009 1:01 PM

It means you can't eat your cake and then still have (i.e., possess) it. If you want to eat it, fine, but then you won't have it anymore. Get it?
Like, if you want to enjoy it you're going to lose it. So you better just enjoy it, and let it go. You can't get your use out of it and then expect to still have it there waiting for you. Can I rephrase this again for you? Is this horse dead yet?

Posted by: AM at November 12, 2009 1:15 PM

WhatImeantersayis

The emphasis in the phrase should be:

You can't HAVE your cake AND it eat it, too.

Not:

You can't HAVE your cake and EAT it, too.

Or summat.

Posted by: AM at November 12, 2009 1:16 PM

But if you eat the cake you still CAN have it, in fact you DO still have it. It's not in the same configuration OR as pretty, but, it's still there folks.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 12, 2009 1:20 PM

That's not cake, that's poop.

Posted by: AM at November 12, 2009 1:28 PM

If you have eaten it, then you no longer have it.
{fin}

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at November 12, 2009 2:17 PM

Hey, Dustin, good review! Seriously, all of y'all have been so on point these past couple of weeks. Although I'm a little bummed to hear this kind of sucks. But not that surprised.

Posted by: Kayanne at November 12, 2009 2:22 PM

The driving plot, I would say, is the government's continued efforts to shut down pirate radio and the station's continued failure to give a fuck. Within the failing to give a fuck, other stories happen. That's what happens in most of life -- right now, your life is probably being shaped by historical arcs of great importance, but that's not where most of your memories come from. PSH's character sums it up when he has the uncomfortable revelation that these are the best years of their lives, and that'll end whenever they leave the boat. They are untouched, but it won't last. It's a rock'n'roll-lover's paradise.

You forgot to mention the frequent shots of average Britons clustered around their radios, usually laughing or dancing, sometimes crying. I feel like a parallel can be drawn between pirate radio and music downloading; at first questionable and later clearly illegal, but something that the majority of people continued to support because it was fulfilling the need that most people have to share the things that they like.

The coming-of-age story is incidental. The main character's real purpose is to introduce us to the boat and its residents, as he is introduced to them.

I also wouldn't be too put off by the emphasis on the lone woman on the boat as a LESBIAN! At the time an out lesbian would have been fairly rare, and no one acts discriminatorily towards her. And it serves to explain her presence as the only woman on the boat.

Also, Rhys Ifans wears fabulous purple brocade coats, not leather jackets. I really don't know how you could have missed it.

I would encourage those who wanted to see it to go ahead and do so. I wouldn't write it off.

Posted by: J. K. Barlow at November 12, 2009 2:46 PM

Hey, with all these ads you think Pajiba can afford an editor for these articles? Proofread before you post!

Posted by: Patrick C at November 12, 2009 2:48 PM

The UK title was The Boat the Rocked? No wonder it was released to a mixed reception. The title doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: Riles at November 12, 2009 2:52 PM

Patrick C...i hear ya

Posted by: Riles at November 12, 2009 3:30 PM

Told you it sucked. As humour goes, Curtis's is boring and predictable.

Posted by: AbFab at November 12, 2009 4:51 PM

Maybe it's meant to read: "The Boat That Rocked"?

Posted by: Brenton at November 12, 2009 5:12 PM

Worst review you've posted so far, Dustin, and I didn't even love the movie in question.

You seriously phoned this in and put in next to no fucking effort. Respect your own site if not the movie.

Very disappointed, and coming on top of the fact that half the commenters I enjoyed reading have outed themselves as advocates of the big bang theory, I am... leaning towards apathetic.

Anyone looking for some sort of analysis that indicates the reviewer has actually watched the fucking movie please refer J. K. Barlow's comment. I honestly believe Dustin cribbed his review from Rotten Tomatoes, or some such.

P.S. the BBT? Really? Who gives a fu*k if it realistically depicts geeks or not, it is not fu*king funny. At all. Dumb cunts.

Posted by: Peter G at November 12, 2009 5:56 PM

I just can't believe all the people that read pajiba treat it so much like the gospel. Remember folks, just because the reviewer dislikes the movie doesn't mean it's shit. You do have your own opinion, remember?

Personally I enjoyed The Boat That Rocked (no I'm not going to call it by its dumbed down name) and thought it had a great bunch of characters with great performances in it and was overall a lot of fun.

And for the people that seem to think it's ok to put shit on reviewers because you didn't like his/her review (I'm looking at you, Peter G), give them a god damn break. They review movies every day for you and that's the way you treat them? They don't tell you how to do your job.

That's my rant over.

Posted by: MKY106 at November 12, 2009 6:27 PM

First of all, Dustin et al review movies for cash, they don't do it for me (I would've added emphasis but I don't know how).

I respect this site, and Dustin gave a poor review (not an unfavourable one). I came away with the impression that he cast his eye over the movie from over the ironing board or while playing with his kid, because he out in little work.

It's because I like this site that I feel I can hold Dustin to task for throwing up rubbish.

Case in point, no one (more emphasis) who saw this movie would describe Brannagh's nuanced bi-polar performance as "grumpy" and say no more. I wasn't even a massive wrap for the film in its entirety, but there were some cracking performances and great relationships in this film, and not just Nighy and Hoffman.

Furthermore, Dustin fucked up his opening premise. No wonder he didn't understand the expression - he couldn't be fucked to google the thing to make sure he knew what the actual expression is.

So yes, as they have a comments section and hold themselves up to be a quality site, I feel I do have the right to have a crack at Dustin. Not for our difference of opinion, but for the fact that it was a lazy article.

If the overlords used my professional services and contributed to my bottom line, then they would have every right to tell me how to do my job if they didn't think I was producing quality.

I'm sure some snide remark will pop from Dustin or Figgy at some stage if we keep this theme up, but fuck it, it was lazy and I'm calling him out.

Posted by: Peter G at November 12, 2009 6:51 PM

Intern Rusty:

We got this film months ago, and none of the ads here put PSH front and centre. It was presented as much more of an ensemble thing.

I'm going to guess that the American marketing types thought it'd only sell if they pushed the American cast member into the spotlight.

Posted by: Daniel Hall at November 12, 2009 7:07 PM

That's not cake, that's poop.

I just giggled for five minutes at that. I imagine a tone of indignation in AM's voice as it's said.

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at November 12, 2009 7:09 PM

The thing that mixed me up about the cake thing was that:

1) To "have" an item of food loosely means to consume it, e.g., "What are we having for dinner?" So, initially the saying seemed like nonsense to me. That is, actually, yes, by definition I'm both "having it" and "eating it."

2) For what good is a cake except eating? I guess people save their wedding cakes for a year or something like that, and I acknowledge there is an artistry to making impressively constructed cakes. Plus, there was that one Seinfeld with the extremely old historic and valuable piece of cake that Elaine ate. But still...just take a picture and eat the damn thing. You take up much less space, and you still preserve the beauty.

3) In my teenage years I once received that birthday card with the "you can't have your cake and Edith too" pun, wherein Edith was a scantily clad bikini babe. That was kind of a cool acknowledgment, I guess. "Hey, kid, happy birthday! You're growing up, so here's some bordering-on-softcore-porn!"

4) A Google search for the image of that birthday card (I must be quite hard-up at the moment) yielded the news (to me) that the Statler Brothers recorded a song called "You Can't Have Your Kate And Edith, Too." They really should have gotten some royalties from that card company.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at November 12, 2009 9:04 PM

Beyond that, I'm disappointed to hear this movie isn't that great. I was looking forward to Philip Seymour Hoffman's re-channeling a little of his Lester Bangs.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at November 12, 2009 9:07 PM

Here's the thing: If you didn't like Love, Actually -- as Dustin clearly didn't -- then you probably WON'T like this film, I'd guess. Knowing that Dustin didn't like that film gives me a clue as to how much credence I ought to give his taste with respect to THIS film vis a vis my OWN taste (being as I LOVE Love, Actually). As such, though I generally adore Dustin's reviews and I respect his opinions, I'm certainly NOT going to take THIS review as gospel.

Translation: I'll be seeing this film and probably enjoying every minute of it. I've loved every film these filmmakers have generated and would be very surprised if this one were the exception. Of course there's always a first time -- maybe this will be it, but I doubt it.

(I have a feeling J. K. Barlow's review is a lot closer to what my experience of this film will be.)

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at November 12, 2009 10:57 PM

I really liked this movie. I saw it under its original title, and I have heard it is being marketed as something it isn't.

it isn't a piece of social historical commentary, isn't a movie about rebels taking on the governnment, isn't about a social revolution revolving around music. The title 'Pirate Radio' is confusing and misleading that way.

The Original title, is much more perceptive. the main character is the atmosphere of the boat. The characters have nothing to do with anything going on out in the world. it was surreal the way the virtually never even set foot off of it. The title was a rich play on words. Rocked can refer to the music, to the fact that they were a party cruiser, to the fact that they were an unsteady crew of unstable people, and even to the fact that they were raising a fuss back home, i.e. rocking the boat. not to mention an allusion to the events in the climax of the film -- which is priceless and worth the admission by itself.

I really hate the sentiment that somehow the most useless times in your life are the best. highschool was not the best time in my life, partying wasn't either. A lot of what passes for lifestyle in youth is let go of precisely because it isn't the best time. it's often a troubled time, or a vapid time, and worse yet, sometimes both simultaneously.

That said, the movie did have an unusually warm feeling considering it was about a bunch of stoned out poon hunting amoral ne'er do wells. The actors and director managed to make a bunch of irreverent dizzy cads likable and made you enjoy visiting their fucktarded little lives.

Posted by: idleprimate at November 12, 2009 11:17 PM

this came out in australia earlier this year,people barely had the enthusiasm to discuss it-promos were sparse,and reviews were mostly neutral/disinterested.then again,people here have atrocious taste and to set our market as the litmus test would be plain dumb.

Posted by: unevan at November 13, 2009 12:50 AM

Good friggin Lord. Calm down. So he didn't like the movie. Big damn deal. From the review it seems like his dislike was comparatively mild. If he'd had a fiery, passionate hate for it then we'd have gotten one of his trademark scathng reviews. But he didn't. Hence the review. It also seems to me that many people here look to this site because their tastes are very similar to that of the reviewers and therefore use the reviews as a guide to whether or not they're going to blow $20 to see the film in the theater or simply rent it from Netflix. And since most of us here have to meet our daily quota of bitching, we also use the reviews as a springboard for hyperbolic expressions of hate......or love. I think one orgasmic expression of love approximates two hyperbolic bitches, thereby contributing to the daily quota.

Frankly, I'm disppointed that the movie isn't what the trailers made it out to be. It sounds like a fun and light-hearted movie to watch, as long as your blood sugar is low that day, but not the commentary on an oppressve government that I was expecting. I'm still going to get it from Netflix, like I was planning to, but at least now I know what to expect.

Posted by: stardust at November 13, 2009 11:47 AM

Peter G -

Seriously? Just...seriously?

I'm so baffled at your cluelessness and misinformation that I can't even be bitchy.

Well done.

Posted by: Nicole at November 13, 2009 12:17 PM

I can't believe this movie is being argued about. Isn't that like arguing about Norah Jones or Jack Johnson? Yes, they both make me passionately angry, but I'll fully admit my rage is WHOLLY disproportionate to their literal absence of substance.

Posted by: Jay at November 13, 2009 2:59 PM

'If you don't eat yur meat, how can ya have any pudding?'
This volleying back and forth about cake and quotings... and all I can think
of, is that guy yelling at the school kids.

Now I'll have that music playing in my ears all evening.

The movie sounds like kind of a stinker (sinker? hee hee?). Based on the two
trailers I'd seen in the past months, I too thought it was pretty much the PSH
show rather than ensemble shananigans.

Posted by: Ms MoMo at November 13, 2009 7:09 PM


Nice work Dustin, loving your inability to criticise American dumbing down (Title change and the mysterious 20 minutes cut), the sometimes forced nostalgia, and your brick-in-the-face subtlety of the conclusion of the film.

Posted by: Rascal at November 13, 2009 8:11 PM

Nicole

Please elaborate.

'To disparage without reason makes you a dumb fuck.'

-Plato

Don't let the great man peg you in that square hole.

Posted by: Peter G at November 16, 2009 2:24 AM

Damn, unevan. I didn't think the general public in other industrialized countries could have taste as bad or worse than we do here in the U.S. That gives me some hope. I suppose it's not so much about our success, as it is about our contemporaries' failure to outpace us.

Posted by: Hoof Hearted at November 18, 2009 1:16 PM





Post a comment

 (required)

 (required)


Preview of your comment: