Such a frustrating disappointment

good back-story, and good acting

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

I heard about this film when I saw Dennis Pennis describing the leading British actor as woody, and in this film he said it was like a chair being thrown into the room, so I was interested to see what I would think. Basically young Anglican priest reverend Anthony Campion (Hugh Grant) has been asked by the bishop to travel from England to Australia with his wife Estella (Brassed Off's Tara Fitzgerald) to visit the eccentric artist Norman Lindsay (Sam Neill). The reason for the visit is to try and stop his work getting out, he is prone to painting sexually controversial imagery, but specifically the work "Crucified Venus" is requested to be withdrawn from show. Anthony tries to stay composed about the opinions of the church, but staying in the artist's place he is shocked by it having no moral standards, especially when it comes to models like Sheela (Elle Macpherson) and Pru (Kate Fischer), and Lindsay's wife Rose (Pamela Rabe) not showing shame or embarrassment taking their clothes off to pose or have fun. But his wife Estella is having trouble also, she is sexually frustrated and has many urges she lusts to fulfil, trying to remain loyal to her husband she cannot help but be intrigued by the women who are free to be nude. By the end of the film Anthony realises that he can do nothing about the desire for Norman to release his latest work, especially as Estella is happy to be depicted in it, and she may have found some passion for her husband after all. Also starring Portia De Rossi as Giddy, Ben Mendelsohn as Lewis, John Polson as Tom and Mark Gerber as Devlin. Grant is indeed wooden and hardly contributes anything but smiling and being posh, Neill doesn't get much time on screen either, Fitzgerald is relatively good as the quietly lusting wife wanting to break free, and Macpherson is okay being naughty and getting her top off a lot. The story is pretty pointless, it seems like just an excuse to see women get their clothes off as often as possible, and if it is meant to make an audience laugh it doesn't do it very well, a silly and pretty boring erotic comedy. Adequate!

OK - where to start with SIRENS? I saw this film again for the first time in years recently. It's a film we used to watch quite often throughout the 90's.Well - for one thing this film has personal resonances for us because we saw the film in Australia when it came out. Also - we lived not far from the idyllic house where Lindsay lived - the centre-piece of the film. Yes - you can visit the house (National Trust for Australia) just off the road between Sydney and Katoomba in the Blue Mountains National Park. We visited several times and always loved it. It meant more that we knew something of Lindsay through his works and this film.This is a curious film - rather a silly film in a lot of ways. Sure - its themes are pretty obvious; sexual suppression and awakening, libertarian/counter-cultural views. Other reviewers have disliked the nude/moral/anti-Christian elements of the film - but I can't agree with them. Sirens is about exploding the myths of the female body and the taboos associated with female sexuality and female self-awareness and it does this in a way which to my mind doesn't offend or depart from the reality of the human experience. You can enjoy Sirens for allowing the exploration of these issues from the peace and tranquillity of your living room chair. Some reviewers have seen deeper themes. If there is anything more it's to do with feminine "sisterhood", bonding and peer identity. But I'm not sure - it would depend on the viewers life experience. Watch Sirens - decide for yourself.The light-hearted way of the movie is upheld throughout by the excellent music, great use of the magnificent Blue Mountains scenery, the easy dialogue and simple plot.The silly parts concern the treatment of the Australian "locals", eg, the old drunk who only says "get f*****d", the leering children and scenes in the rugged bar - where the locals show their contempt for the Lindsay crowd whom they mistrust and don't understand. This is handled in a way which makes country Australians in the 1930's look stupid and ignorant to the point of complete separation from any of the moral considerations of Lindsays artistic world as seen here. It's an unnecessary weakness in the construction of the film. The other sillinesses concern the "throw on" Australian animals; at one point a wallaby is "thrown" at Tara Fitzgerald - it's hysterical! But I enjoyed the film. It's photographed beautifully. It's a simple low-budget piece that relies on its story, the power of it's messages and images. The acting which whilst not brilliant - is not poor. It's not a "great film" - but doesn't try to be. If you want to see something of Australia and a fun film that doesn't take itself too seriously - then SIRENS is worth a watch.

Oh, how I love this movie!It shows us how under the thin veneer of hypocrisy, religiousness, and enmity against all physical lies what God gave us to enjoy: a body to experience happiness, laughter, desire, sensuality, lust, and sexuality. And no institutions (like the Christian church in this film) have the right nor - in the long run - the capability to prevent people from finding out this fundamental truth.Watching this movie without an open mind towards sex or a joyful sense of humor surely will be annoying. So fundamentalist Christians and other prudes shouldn't bother. The rest of the audience (hopefully the majority) can expect a solid performance of the entire ensemble and many moments that make you smile and sometimes downright happy.

With not an awful lot going on and some 'poker faced' acting; 'Sirens' struggles to be a truly good film for a number of different reasons.What stops Sirens from being really good is the fact it doesn't take advantage of its promising start. With sly humour, good use of the outback Australia setting, amusing chemistry between Hugh Grant's character and his wife and an interesting argument over some paintings forming very early on; the opening ten or so minutes is rather good. Unfortunately it cannot hold its good premise once everyone settles down at the predominant location of the rich artist's house.The actual plot for this film is very weak when thought about. It's more of an argument/discussion more than anything; in fact I've probably had better discussions in pubs over a drink. Maybe there was something else in there, but it went totally over MY head. Nothing seems to go anywhere, in fact everyone seems to just, literally, settle down at this rich man's house and wait around a few days for the ultimate 'no, I'm not changing my artwork.' 'What's actually going on?', 'Where are the narrative's battles going to come from?' I was asking my self. The film also seems to take a rather shameful turn as its attempt at humour in these early stages comes from the fact small children are swearing.You also have to take into account the actual point of some of the scenes. Again, maybe I missed something altogether deeper, but what was the point of the running game scene where several characters are running and chasing each other through a shallow stream? And what was the point of the fake fairies hanging from ropes outside in the garden, for the children? When looking at the running time for the film, it's not even into triple figures and taking out these scenes would have made it even shorter. This is why I'm suspicious over the actual point of these scenes – I think they're just there to bulk the film up and although it may all seem very sympathetic, it didn't do anything for me.Some things I did like about the film includes the cinematography. As I mentioned, it's shot well and the use of wide shots, exploiting the outback works well. You really get a feel for the place, be you looking at desert or natural springs. The reoccurring snake in-joke was especially amusing as we see numerous examples of Australian wildlife, also. Once again, excellent iconography and good cinematography.One thing that this film has going for it in a big way is the constant 'threat' of the three models. They're central to the 'plot', and if you were to take them out of the film, there wouldn't be one. All the interesting scenes in the film involve them in some way or another and this is odd, because they are overriding Hugh Grant's character along with his wife whom are supposed to be the focus. They are there to argue and discuss but we are not interested – we want to know about the models. Their constant, flirtatious presence is almost comic relief to the audience and their nude scenes are timed well in-between everything else that happens.Although with some good in it, essentially getting the basic principals correct; Sirens fails to deliver when it comes to the plot and any REAL character development. It's just not an interesting film.