Pirate Radio (and some discussion about 2012)

[JasonEvans]

I saw Pirate Radio at a screening a few nights ago and just wanted to let everyone know how much I enjoyed it. It is not some brilliant piece of Oscar-worthy cinematic art, but it is a ton of fun.

The story is nothing special, but that is ok. It is a very simple story designed to merely get you from one amusing scene to the next. It almost feels, at times, like a lot of mini-stories being told in the same place rather than one larger story. But it really works and accomplishes the major goal, which is to get you engaged with the characters.

http://www.exclaim.ca/images/up-Pirate_Radio_.jpg

The actors are mostly British and are first-rate. Bill Nighy, who has been somewhere between good and great in every film he has made, is a scene stealer whenever he is on camera. He's funny and charming. Philip Seymour Hoffman is clearly having a good time in this one. And the pudgy Nick Frost breaks out from Simon Pegg's shadow wonderfully. He's great here. Kenneth Branaugh and the stuffy Brits who want to shut down the Pirate Radio boats are a bit too stuffy and almost cartoonish, but we get very little of them. 90% of the movie is on the boat.


Of course, the real star of the film is 60s Rock and Roll and our love of it. There is a near-constant classic rock track going in the background throughout the film and it is hard not to fall in love with it as much as the characters do. I found myself rocking to the music a lot of the time.

The film is very funny. Much of the humor is adult in nature, plenty of it centers around sex, but it is never raunchy. I was surprised though, when I found myself really caring about the characters and their fates. Toward the end, when the movie gets more dramatic, I actually caught myself with a tear on my cheek. You don't notice it, but the film really drags you in. There were a few moments where the audience I was with broke out in cheers.

--Jason " If you like 60s rock, check this flick out. You won't be disappointed" Evans

[Olympic Fan]

The actors are mostly British and are first-rate. Bill Nighy, who has been somewhere between good and great in every film he has made, is a scene stealer whenever he is on camera.

--Jason " If you like 60s rock, check this flick out. You won't be disappointed" Evans

Roger Ebert called Nighy, "the British Steve Buscemi" ... I think that's a great comparison -- two character actors who brighten every film they are in. I thought Nighy was great as the over-the-hill rocker in "Love Actually."

Ebert gave the film four stars -- he mentioned that the historical background for the story is real ... that through the 1960s and early 1970s, the BBC only broadcast 30 minutes of rock and roll every 24 hours and since they controlled British radio in that era, that was it -- at a time when British Rock was kicking butt in the United States (the Beatles, the Stones, the Kinks, the Who, Herman's Hermits, Gerry and the Pacemakers ...) British kids got it for 30 minutes a day!

Apparently, there were a whole fleet of "Pirate" radio stations surrounding the British Isles, just outside the territorial limit. The most famous of these is Radio Caroline, which apparently is still broadcasting on the net. Sorry, I don't know how to link it.

Anyway, thanks for the review, Jason. I'll be headed out to see it this week.

[moonpie23]

i will definitely check it out..

[JasonEvans]

i will definitely check it out..

The film just died at the box office this week, so if you want to see it, do so soon.

--Jason "meanwhile 2012 does 60 million... there is no accounting for the taste of the moviegoing public" Evans

[moonpie23]

The film just died at the box office this week, so if you want to see it, do so soon.

--Jason "meanwhile 2012 does 60 million... there is no accounting for the taste of the moviegoing public" Evans

well, you said MOVIEGOING public......not FILMLOVING public.....

explosions and efx are what the public like to see/hear/feel......don't bother them with a "script"

[Indoor66]

well, you said MOVIEGOING public......not FILMLOVING public.....

explosions and efx are what the public like to see/hear/feel......don't bother them with a "script"

Does this mean that the film appeals to the effete movie goers?

[YourLandlord]

--Jason "meanwhile 2012 does 60 million... there is no accounting for the taste of the moviegoing public" Evans

Ebert gave it a great review. If you want to be entertained and blown away by dramatic visual imagery for 2.5 hours, going to see 2012 for $7 is a great great idea.

Not every movie has to be an Oscar nominee to be fun or enjoyable.

[darthur]

Pirate Radio only had okay reviews overall so we can't really blame the lowest common denominator here. It looks good to me though, and I'm planning on seeing it.

PS: I wonder if Ebert is about the most generous major reviewer out there with his ratings. Most other major critics seem to love tearing movies down, and he does that only rarely, at least that I've noticed.

[BD80]

A very enjoyable movie, if wholly predictable. Anyone that enjoyed "Love Actually" will enjoy "Pirate Radio." The movies use many of the same cinematic devices, and the comedy is very similar. There is a genuine congeniality above the film that is compelling. I found it interesting that ex-spouse Emma Thompson and Kenneth Branaugh were in the film, but it turns out that they may never have appeared on the set together. It is certainly an ensemble cast, and it works very well. I took five teenagers, ages 13 -19, and they all enjoyed the movie. I consider it a testament to my parenting skills that my sons enjoyed the soundtrack and were familiar with many of the songs.

The soundtrack is the star of the film, and was very well synchronized with the action and mood of the film. Several scenes were driven by the soundtrack.

I enjoyed the humor, which is a bit British. An example is the character "Thick Kevin" who quickly demonstrates why he is not called "Clever Kevin." I guess I should confess that I immediately knew the responses Kevin was seeking with his inane clues. I was laughing throughout the movie. A little too much "popcorn logic" is exercised to reach the resolution, but like a smart kangaroo driving your car, it may go up on the curb, but it'll get you where you want to go.

Well worth the time and the money to go see.

[YourLandlord]

I took five teenagers, ages 13 -19, and they all enjoyed the movie. I consider it a testament to my parenting skills that my sons enjoyed the soundtrack and were familiar with many of the songs.


Bravo!

[JasonEvans]

Ebert gave 2012 a great review. If you want to be entertained and blown away by dramatic visual imagery for 2.5 hours, going to see 2012 for $7 is a great great idea.

Not every movie has to be an Oscar nominee to be fun or enjoyable.

As I said, Pirate Radio is no Oscar kinda movie, but I loved it. I 100% agree with your last line. Heck, many Oscar films are so serious, I have a hard time enjoying them. Was Million Dollar Baby a fun time at the movies?

Here is the thing I wonder about 2012-- every critic who says nice things says the movie is like a cartoon. The action and destruction are soooo over the top, it is funny. The good reviews treat it more like a comedy than an action/adventure.

So, here is my question for anyone who has seen it-- Is this intentional? Was this was Roland Emmrich was going for? Or, did he fail so spectacularly that he actually made something good because it is so bad? Is it good in the same way that Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is good?

I recall watching the horrid The Happening and thinking, "maybe Shyamalan is trying to make it so horrible that we laugh at it." I don't think that was the case in The Happening but is that what we have here?

--Jason "changing the title of this thread to reflect discussion of both films" Evans

[YourLandlord]

So, here is my question for anyone who has seen it-- Is this intentional? Was this was Roland Emmrich was going for? Or, did he fail so spectacularly that he actually made something good because it is so bad? Is it good in the same way that Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is good?


I think Ebert said it best -- the visuals are amazing, but not necessarily credible. I mean, you're flooding the Himalayas. That's not credible, from our understanding of our world. But it certainly is an amazing visual, if you can suspend disbelief.

Which you pretty much have to do for 90% of the movies that exist these days anyway. So I don't think that's a bad thing. It's a movie -- it's fantasy. I mean, to judge it by this standard, Avatar will be the worst movie ever made.

[JasonEvans]

I think Ebert said it best -- the visuals are amazing, but not necessarily credible. I mean, you're flooding the Himalayas. That's not credible, from our understanding of our world. But it certainly is an amazing visual, if you can suspend disbelief.

Which you pretty much have to do for 90% of the movies that exist these days anyway. So I don't think that's a bad thing. It's a movie -- it's fantasy. I mean, to judge it by this standard, Avatar will be the worst movie ever made.

I am not sure you understood my questions.

I have no problem with suspension of belief in movies. Heck, I watch Emmrich's Independence Day every time it is on. Within ithe context of the story that is being told there, the film is believable and true. My point was, based on what I have seen and read about 2012, the amazing visuals just are not true or believable. I have seen a clip on-line of LA falling to pieces and them driving a car and then flying a plane through collapsing buildings and it was just awful. What some reviewers seem to be saying is it is so bad it is actually funny, which makes it ok. My point was-- is this intentional or did Emmrich accidentally make a disaster porn comedy?

-Jason

[allenmurray]

. . . Avatar will be the worst movie ever made.

Which rings true from what I have seen in previews/traliers/comercials! :eek:

[moonpie23]

suspending disbelief works differently for different folks. I LOVED the new Star Trek, but i took a friend when i saw it for the 3rd time and the friend thought the special efx were not believable ......this person describes himself as a "well rounded film buff". Raved about "Dark Knight" ........hated "Star Trek"....


this person loves "art films" yet refuses to acknowledge movies like Toy Story, The Incredibles or Shrek as "real movies". He regularly irritates me by calling them "cartoons"......i regularly irritate him by quoting box office grosses on his art films...


Lots of folks hated GI JOE, but i thought it was fun....nothing more....just fun..

[aimo]

I found it interesting that ex-spouse Emma Thompson and Kenneth Branaugh were in the film, but it turns out that they may never have appeared on the set together.

They have actually done a number of movies together since splitting. They must still be good friends. It happens. Not to hijack the thread, but did you ever see Dead Again? I recently bought the dvd as my off-HBO recording wore out. Love that movie!

[bird]

I am not sure you understood my questions.

I have no problem with suspension of belief in movies. Heck, I watch Emmrich's Independence Day every time it is on. Within ithe context of the story that is being told there, the film is believable and true. My point was, based on what I have seen and read about 2012, the amazing visuals just are not true or believable. I have seen a clip on-line of LA falling to pieces and them driving a car and then flying a plane through collapsing buildings and it was just awful. What some reviewers seem to be saying is it is so bad it is actually funny, which makes it ok. My point was-- is this intentional or did Emmrich accidentally make a disaster porn comedy?

-Jason

My son and I laughed through the first half (we were the first ones laughing at the beginning, but the audience was pretty much with it after the first 30 minutes or so), but we got bored with the same ol' thing the second half. As for your question, I do have to question the good faith of the movie makers if they were trying to make an honest, serious end-of-the-world movie as opposed to a send-off on the genre. First, the plot, such as it was, is 100 percent derivative: 20 percent the World of the Worlds remake, 80 percent of the original When Worlds Collide. I mean, there wasn't one original plot idea in the thing. It was like Airplane in that respect; take a worn-out idea, and take it to a ridiculous extreme. Second, and SPOILERS ALERT the emotional wrap up at the end was ludicrous. Everyone seemed perfectly fine with destruction of all they had known, end of civilization, death of families, having husbands ground up like hamburger, and the like, and were to all appearances having a great time on their romantic cruise trip to Africa. That had to be a joke.

[Mal]

Saw "Pirate Radio." Let me provide the counter opinion. I don't write this to question JE or anyone else's aesthetic preferences. Just providing a contrast, especially for any others who may not be fans of the whole Richard Curtis thing.

I found this movie to be flat out Lame. I should have known it was not for me, based simply on the ads I saw for it, but I went along with others who wanted to check it out anyway, putting faith in the cast.

It was aggressively bland and non-controversial, despite a subject matter that could be used to say something interesting. To the extent it did say anything, it was Boomer back-patting, rock 'n roll saved the world, and "Gawd, weren't the '60's awesome when we rebelled against the comically square Man and changed the world Forevar! Also, your music sucks." I've seen that one a few times.

I think Philip Seymour Hoffman is one of the best actors of his generation, but he's already played Lester Bangs. In "Almost Famous," I thought he gave a wonderful portrayal of a deeply cynical, sardonic man still seduced by the power of music. His role here, however, was annoying to me. He seemed too cognizant of how we're now, 40 years later, supposed to picture the cool American DJ telling people to rebel in the '60s. I could tell he was having fun, but it felt like he was playing to those expectations instead of doing something organic.

The lack of a coherent plot or character focus, in favor of a bunch of half-sketches of (not terribly funny) joke vessel characters you end up not caring about, because their plotlines are dropped and not revived for another 25 minutes, just doesn't work for me, I guess. The intro felt too contrived, the montages tedious, the switches from boat to mainland momentum killing, the laughs self-conscious, and the eccentricity of the characters too precious.

I thought "Love Actually" was an awful, no, loathsome, movie, so again, I know I should have stayed away. For me, the smugness and self-congratulations of that one overrode all the charm everyone else seemed to see in it. There's not quite as much of that here, but there's enough.

[Olympic Fan]

I thought "Love Actually" was an awful, no, loathsome, movie, so again, I know I should have stayed away. For me, the smugness and self-congratulations of that one overrode all the charm everyone else seemed to see in it. There's not quite as much of that here, but there's enough.

Thanks for including this, so I know how much weight to give your opinion.

That's not to knock YOUR aesthetic preference -- you are as welcome to them as JE is his and I am mine. It's just that it's always helpful to know the point of view of a critic. I'm certainly not going to take advice from a critic who loved Transformers or one who hated Fargo.

And if you hate "Pirate Radio" as much as you hate "Love Actually", then I know that it is likely I'll love it. Thanks for the input.

PS As for bird's comments about the uncomfortable ending to "2012", that's about the one thing that I didn't like about Emmerich's "Independence Day" -- a wonderful comic book of a movie. In the final scene, everybody's looking at the wrecked space ship, hugging and smoking cigars. Does it seem a little creepy to anybody else how happy the president's daughter is -- one day after watching her mother die? Boy, kids bounce back quickly.

One other point about Independence Day -- if there was ever a movie to get on a loaded DVD it's that one for the alternate ending. In the original version, Randy Quaid is turned down when he volunteers to fly a jet against the aliens because he's drunk. Instead, he cranks up his crop duster, straps a missile to it, and does his thing. There's a version of the original scene on the DVD, along with director's commentary -- he says they scrapped it because "it wasn't believable" ... yeah, that wasn't believable!

That one line had me rolling on the floor, my sides hurting with laughter.

[Duke4Ever32]

Ebert gave it a great review. If you want to be entertained and blown away by dramatic visual imagery for 2.5 hours, going to see 2012 for $7 is a great great idea.

Not every movie has to be an Oscar nominee to be fun or enjoyable.

Where is this theater that only charges $7 to get in?!!!! Must have been a matinee! :)

[Mal]

That's exactly why I made the "Love, Actually" comments, to give folks a bit of a "this is where I'm coming from". I also had intended but forgot to include a note to people who liked that one, that they'd probably like this one for many of the same reasons. It had what is I think often characterized as a shambling charm that, as I said, was just lost on me.

Not to worry, though. I often make decisions on what to see or not see based on what's on the "To See" lists of a couple of good friends of mine whose tastes are inevitably radically opposed to mine, so I have no issue with your taking my snooty and negative review as "Oly, see this one!" :) I've met numerous others who had strong negative reactions to "Love, Actually," so I wanted to post here more for their benefit, but I'm cool with it having a side effect!

To correct an earlier note that I had wanted to mention previously, I think Ebert actually gave "Pirate Radio" three stars instead of four.

[JasonEvans]

So, did anybody see Pirate Radio this week? If you see it this weekend, please post comments here.

-Jason "same with 2012, I guess" Evans