Wordiezett So much average

VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Jackson Booth-Millard 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he is prone to painting sexually controversial imagery, but specifically the work "Crucified Venus" is requested to be withdrawn from show.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!

lawrence_elliott Not a bad film when you can create controversy over the beauty of the female and male body. Fortunately for this film the casting of the females and male show good taste in the human form including facial good looks. An interesting film that displays a rich and beautiful cinematography of the Australian landscape and a cast that acts out its parts well. Hugh Grant is a bit of a joke as an actor but he does an adequate job here as a cleric on a mission of wrist slapping an artist, Norman Lindsay, in his graphic painting of a naked goddess on a cross which appears sacrilegious at first glance. This is a well presented film that explores female sexuality in a variety of forms that excites and titillates. A film about self-awareness of female sexuality, it does not preach but instead depicts clearly the conflict that comes into play when religion tries to regulate "morality" and artistic merit. Good film!

Theodor 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.

johnnyboyz 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.