I had never heard of this film before I saw it on television one night. Luckily I saw it in Australia and it wasn't edited for content. I found it refreshing and intelligent. Set in the 1920's, it's about a reverend and his wife who travel to the Outback of Australia to "tame down" an artist (played well by Sam Neil) who has been creating "lewd" paintings. In the end, the film successfully criticizes religion's hang ups about sex. The reverend, of course, plays the part of conservative who is against these paintings that he deems are pornographic. During the course of the film he has several opportunities to explain his objections. While the film ultimately suggests that he is wrong, it still allows us to understand the reverend's point-of-view and perhaps even sympathize with it. The most remarkable thing about this character was his "some things are best left untold" stance concerning his wife's misbehaviors. This was a brilliant unexpected twist for me. At no point in the movie is the reverend made out to be a villain. Rather, he is presented as an intelligent and forgiving man, who just happens to be conservative about sex. With that said, I do not believe criticizing religion's view of sex was the main purpose of this film. The true story -- related but not the same -- was about the reverend's wife finding her own repressed sexuality while also well-aware of her husband's views which she initially shared. She is the heroine of the film. She makes a journey, encounters inner conflict, and returns changed by her experiences for the better (or we are led to believe). Any review of Sirens would be incomplete if it failed to comment on the sex scenes. They are explicit but nothing to be alarmed about especially considering this film targets a purely adult audience. The sex scenes are tastefully done even if they are built on lust instead of love. If I may venture an opinion, I think most women will find this movie very erotic. Take for instance, the perpetually bare-chested muscular blind guy. This character fulfills no other purpose than to incarnate female sexual desires. Men however will not find this film very arousing. It explores the sexual desires of women not men. But there are plenty of beautiful naked women to kept them interested even if the story doesn't. But as a man, I enjoyed the movie too. (I can't even recall any film attempting to explore men's sexual desires artfully at this moment...) In summery, a very good film that is thought-provoking and well-done. 7/10
Add a Review
-
MyOpinionIsFact10 July 1999
-
=G=18 March 2001"Sirens" (title refers to Homer's sirens) tells of a young church official who is dispatched to visit a painter at his remote Aussie studio/estate to dissuade him from showing a painting of a nude on a cross. Hugh Grant plays the minister who, with his wife, encounters four beautiful models (one is the artist's wife) who bemuse him with their nude romps and sensual ways. Moreover, he's distressed by his wife's apparent interest in the unabashed frolicking. "Sirens" is a not too serious and somewhat sensual film with a thin plot. The film's appeal is in the moment-to-moment situations, the shangrila "feel" given to the harsh outback locale, the feminist antics of the bevy of babes, etc. Some will find the film tedious while others will be captivated by it's subtle charms.
-
cestmoi8 June 2004It is not the bosoms, really. No, there is an earnest quality here that is dependent on performances and landscapes and an essential moral tale than on the bounteousness of bums and bosoms frolicking in Australia. Neil is always good, Tara Fitzgerland is fine, and that often one-note Hugh Grant works perfectly as a priggish English priest who opens up ever so slightly when all is said and done. And much is said and some is done. There is some absolutley wonderful photography and some perfectly awful and obvious photography that would make Hallmark blush. Pretty good script with the story wandering about more than a bit. Shorter would have been better and the blue shots of nude statuary of indifferent quality by this nice but hardly profound Australian artist(on whose life and an episode therein, is it based)could have been a one-shot affair for my money. But I liked it for the performances.
-
Todd M20 April 1999While this film is often not taken seriously because of its explicit nudity, it is in fact one of the most thought-provoking commentaries on religious values I have ever seen on the screen. This film provides us with the stark contrast of the repressed preacher from London and the artist's three models in rural Australia, a throwback to Shakespeare's "Green World." The fulcrum of this contrast is the preacher's wife, being pulled in both the oppressive, "moral" direction by her upbringing and her husband and the free and expressive direction of the artist. The breathtaking cinematography and stunning visual symbolism of this film contribute to make it into a powerful attack on the Christian moral code that dominates western thinking. I have been scoffed at on more than one occasion for praising Sirens, but I left the theater questioning my own views about what is and is not moral. The fact that this film's sexual content seems to invalidate it as art in many people's eyes merely underscores the value of its message. Along with Sling Blade, Sirens to me stands as the most provocative film about morality made in the 1990's. A solid 8 on a scale of 1 to 10.
-
ccarroll16 October 2000This movie, which in the popular imagination is a lighthearted comedy about sex with a lot of attractive women taking off their clothes, is a better movie than many may think. Viewed in a different life it's really a movie about the need we all have to feel and to be sexual. This applies particularly and especially to women, whose sexual appetitites and enjoyment of sex have always been seen negatively. This movie gives women a chance to revel in the enjoyment of sex.
-
lastliberal16 March 2007A soft-core, high-minded daydream about the liberating sensuality of art. Sometimes the sirens in the film (Elle MacPherson, Kate Fischer and Portia de Rossi are the others) tickle one another merrily, and sometimes they talk about whether sea slugs make a good aphrodisiac.
The story is based on a real artist, Norman Lindsay(Sam Neill)and there was a real Anglican priest (played by Hugh Grant) sent to convince him to withdraw his "Crucified Venus" from exhibition. The film is set on Campion's estate and features his work throughout.
It is a little wild, silly at times, and features explicit nudity and sexual situations. Perfect introduction to Hugh Grant's abilities. -
MBunge14 October 2010This film covers up a rather muddled main story with a lot of charm and a lot of nudity. It works pretty well as a travelogue of both the Australian countryside and Elle Macpherson's breasts, but it depends too much on the audience coming into the film with a certain predisposition.
Anthony Campion (Hugh Grant) is an English clergyman in the 1930s who's been sent to Australia to deal with a controversial artist. The paintings of Norman Lindsay (Sam Neill) splash nudity and blasphemy across the canvas and Campion is sent to ask him to provide some less provocative work for an exhibition. Campion and his wife Estella (Tara Fitzgerald) travel to Lindsay's home and spend several days there, Campion arguing with Lindsay and Estella getting caught up with the sexually precocious models that live with Lindsay. Essentially, the movie is about Estella overcoming her button down and conventional morality through the Sapphic-tinged attentions of a model named Sheela (Elle Macpherson) and the lovelorn neediness of another model named Giddy (Portia De Rossi). A handyman named Devlin (Mark Gerber), who seems to be straight out of a Harlequin romance novel, also figures into the mix.
This definitely isn't a movie you'll enjoy because of its story. It establishes Campion and Lindsay quite well as a devout but cultured man of God and an intellectual version of Hugh Hefner, respectively. Those two characters don't do very much, though. The other characters are either broadly or obviously drawn and are more like props than people. Even Estella, who's clearly becomes the main character in the movie, isn't defined as much more than a typical, middle class Englishwoman of the early 20th century, with all the generic sort of reserve and pluck than implies.
Sirens is supposed to be about the sensual awakening of Estella. The problem is it never bothers to explain why she needs to be awoken. Outside of a bout of passionless sex with their pajamas on that happens late in the story, the movie doesn't explore or explain or display what's wrong with the way Campion and Estella are. Indeed, Campion is put forth as a well-adjusted Christian man while the audience is left to merely assume that Estella is repressed and unhappy. By not establishing that something is disordered or unhealthy with Estella, the film takes away any sense of purpose or significance to her journey to sexual fulfillment. It's like the audience is supposed to naturally understand there's something terribly leaden and cold about being a middle class Englishwoman in the early 20th century.
I'm not sure Sirens would be much of a film if it weren't for the plentiful nudity on display but there is a lot of it, it's high quality and there's something for both genders and most orientations. The nakedness is of a more artistic than erotic quality, however. It's also interesting to see a young Hugh Grant play the exact same sort of character he's played his entire career, but with an air of more confidence and maturity. It makes you realize that the stock Hugh Grant character has somewhat aged in reverse, becoming more insecure and befuddled as Grant himself got older.
The other actors all do a fine job and it's surprising that Elle Macpherson didn't get more roles after this film. In addition to being stunning, she has a real on screen presence and charisma. You always notice her when she's in a scene, and not just because she's beautiful and without clothes.
Sirens has a sense of style and is not at all heavy-handed with its theme of sexual liberation. It's more diverting than engrossing, but if you like period pieces about unusual people and their odd lives (with oodles of bare flesh thrown in), you should give this film a try. -
ksf-29 September 2019A minister and his wife (Hugh Grant, Tara Fitzgerald) are dispatched to disuss a painter's sensual work in Australia. ironically, the train depot is located in Springwood. Co-stars Portia DeRossi and Elle MacPherson, as the sexy, naked, muses, in very early roles . Sam Neill is the artist Lindsay, whose work has been deemed a little too naughty for an upcoming show. They arrive at the artist's home, and the merry adventure begins. The little strange moments start to add up, and turn into larger, stranger, naughtier things. and of course, because he's a minister, we keep seeing serpents... The minister and his wife are thinking things and doing things they never would have thought possible. will it tear their marriage apart? It's pretty good. Beautiful outdoor scenery of australia. Written and directed by John Duigan; his films have won many film festival awards. Not bad!
-
JamesHitchcock23 January 2023When I was a boy one of my favourite books was the Australian children's classic "The Magic Pudding", so when I first saw "Sirens" in the cinema in 1994 I was surprised to find out a few things about the life of its author Norman Lindsay. He wrote books for both children and adults but was better known as a painter than as a writer. He appears as one of the main characters in this film, and although the story is a fictitious one, the portrait drawn of him as a hedonistic Bohemian, a promiscuous libertine and an opponent of organised religion appears to have been accurate. (He also held racist and far-right opinions, but the film tactfully omits any mention of this side of his character). One reviewer describes him as an atheist, but this does not seem correct if by "atheist" is meant a thoroughgoing rationalist. His religious views appear to have been a personal take on Graeco-Roman paganism. He believes that in a previous life he lived on the lost continent of Atlantis, and a thoroughgoing rationalist would doubtless deride belief both in Atlantis and in reincarnation.
The action is set in the 1920s. The Anglican Archbishop film of Sydney, taking exception to an allegedly blasphemous painting which Lindsay intends to exhibit, asks a young clergyman named Tony Campion to visit the artist and persuade him to withdraw the offending artwork from the exhibition. (Why the good Archbishop imagines that the notoriously anti-religious Lindsay will take any notice of anything that a priest has to say is never explained). Tony and his young wife Estella arrive at Lindsay's home in the Blue Mountains, and find that the artist is living in what might be called a menage a cinq with his wife, Rose, two models, Pru and Sheila, and the maid, Giddy. All four women both sleep with Lindsay and pose for his pictures, and are frequently seen in the nude. Lindsay makes Tony and Estella welcome, but Tony is disturbed by the atmosphere of sexual libertinism. He is also disturbed to discover that Estella seems much less disturbed than he is.
The basic idea behind the film, the clash between libertinism and religious asceticism, is a potentially interesting one, but the film doesn't make the most of it. I have never really been able to see Hugh Grant as the representative of religious asceticism; despite his dog-collar, Tony seems more like the sort of romantic comedy heroes which Grant specialised in playing during this part of his career in films like "Four Weddings and a Funeral" and "The Englishman Who Went up a Hill but Came down a Mountain". (In this latter Grant also co-starred with Tara Fitzgerald, who here plays Estella). Fitzgerald has something of a thankless task. One of the main themes of the film is supposed to be Estella's sexual awakening, but the script never gives us much idea of what sort of person she was to begin with. Fitzgerald also has the disadvantage that for most of the time she is required to keep her clothes on, meaning that she tends to be overshadowed by several statuesque young women, including supermodel Elle MacPherson, wandering about naked.
Sam Neill makes Lindsay a likeable old rogue, but never does enough to overcome the argument that a lifestyle like his (not particularly uncommon in Bohemian circles, even in the 1920s) has less to do with principled opposition to Christian moral values than it does with the selfish desire to take sexual advantage of as many young women as possible. When he talks about the victims of the Inquisition, what he really means is getting his leg over. One writer talks about Lindsay "living a Hugh Hefner lifestyle"; given what we now know about Hefner those words seem truer, and less complimentary, today than they did when first written in 2004.
The film has some virtues, including some attractive photography of there spectacular Australian landscapes, but overall "Sirens" struck me as a rather trite, trivial film, much less significant or meaningful than writer/director John Duigan seemed to have imagined. A pudding of a movie, but with little magic about it. 5/10. -
Red-Barracuda29 November 2021I remember this one back in the day was mainly being sold on the fact that supermodel Elle MacPherson appears naked in it (a perfectly good reason to watch a movie BTW). But its not really very exploitative at all though. Its an Aussie period drama about an uptight minister (Hugh Grant), who is sent to visit an artist (Sam Neill) who is producing erotic paintings which are offending the church, with the purpose of convincing him to stop producing this decadent art. But while there his wife (Tara Fitzgerald) starts to be drawn towards the sexually liberated world of the artist and his three models. This is a pretty good movie, with fine performances all round, including Elle MacPherson in a very rare acting role. It balances the comedy, drama and erotic elements very well and is all-in-all quality Aussie effort.
-
ccthemovieman-19 August 2006It isn't just Hollywood; it's the film world, in general. I'm talking about the incredible anti-Christian bias movie makers have always had. The Left Wing has always dominated the business, whether in America or Europe. In this case, it's Australia.
This highly moral movie has a bunch of models parading around nude and a preacher's wife winding up in a lesbian relationship with one of them. I don't think so!!! Also, the minister is "liberated" and, after seeing what's going on, is "more open-minded" now that he's converted to Liberal ways of seeing things.
Need I say more? -
hannahchow18 March 2004"Sirens" seems to have touched a nerve here. Some reviewers dismiss it as derivative soft-core drivel. Others love it. It probably helps to know that there's little derivative about the story-it's based on real people and a real incident. Sam Neill's character--Norman Lindsay--was real. Lindsay, a prolific artist and novelist, was also a libertine living a Hugh Hefner lifestyle when the rest of the world was awakening from the Victorian Age. "Sirens" was filmed at the Lindsay home and gallery, a 40-acre estate now run by the Australian National Trust. The artworks are all Lindsay's. And the storyline is based on an incident in which the Anglican Church dispatched a cleric to convey concerns about "The Crucifixion of Venus." As for the plot, it's simply a humorous retelling of what might have been--with lots of voluptuous nudes and erotic symbolism tossed in for good measure. Yes, it's all quite predictable. You know five minutes into the film that the Converters will become the Converted. But it's a fun ride getting to that inevitable destination. `Sirens' is not for everyone. If full-frontal male and female nudity offends, you will be offended. If ridiculing the Church or its values offends, you will be offended. And if the notion that the cure for a boring marriage is a little extra-marital dalliance offends, you will truly be offended. Otherwise, it's a little erotic gem and a great way to start an even better evening. :)
-
It's the 1930s, and Australian artist Norman Lindsay (Sam Neill) has created a painting of a voluptuous nude woman on a cross. This is deemed blasphemous by The Church, who send one of their young ministers, Anthony Campion (Hugh Grant), and his wife Estella (Tara Fitzgerald), to Australia to try to talk him out of submitting the painting for exhibition. Anthony and Estella find Lindsay on his country estate, living a bohemian existence with his wife Rose (Pamela Rabe), their two children, and Lindsay's three gorgeous models. Sheela (supermodel Elle Macpherson) and Pru (Kate Fischer) are the more outgoing ones, and Giddy (Portia de Rossi) is the more naive, innocent one. Estella finds that their sexually liberated ways tend to rub off on her.
There's a fair bit of discussion of art, religion, and philosophy in this not uninteresting social comedy. It's all attractively shot, on picturesque Oz locations, and is atmospheric and notably erotic. Many viewers may gravitate towards "Sirens" on the strength of the nudity, and there's quite a bit to admire here. Macpherson, Fischer, de Rossi, and Fitzgerald all are tantalizing, but rest assured that there's some beefcake on display as well, as the blind, rugged Devlin (Mark Gerber) doffs his duds for the camera. Overall, the film is good, light entertainment from writer / director John Duigan, who also has a cameo as a minister. He gets very good performances out of everybody present, especially Fitzgerald and de Rossi. The story rests on Fitzgeralds' capable shoulders as she undergoes a change in character.
No, "Sirens" is not for the easily offended, but those with thicker skins should find this agreeable enough.
Lindsay was previously played by James Mason in the 1969 film "Age of Consent".
Seven out of 10. -
BigGuy17 June 1999Granted, this movie is one of the few that deals with controversial issues. It portrays nudity rather than nakedness. But the movie is so full of itself that it is disgusting. Maybe I was oversensitized by imagery in English class, but this movie is just way too blatant. Do I have to see a snake every 10 minutes to be reminded of the garden of eden? At times this movie is little more than celluloid masturbation. Also I really felt the whole situation was way too contrived and unbelievable. Alter the plot from religion to politics (not that far in this film) and it becomes a propoganda film.
-
runar-423 June 2002I knew nothing about this movie, but offered to accompany a woman I had known for some time, but had never been on more than vaguely friendly terms. I was not prepared for the charm, playfulness, joy and raw sensuality that this film captured. Sam Neill is the ultimate sensualist, yet indulges his children's fancies with innocent abandon. Hugh Grant is a likable doofus, and he is far outpaced by Tara Fitzgerald's acceptance of the pleasures of the flesh. In many ways, this couple reminded me of Brad & Janet in "Rocky Horror" - the man is either unable or too clueless to accept the sensual awakening that his companion does. Thus, I was pleased at my date's choice of film, and any discomfort of my own at being seduced by the screen on a first date soon passed from my date's reactions to the sexy scenes. On the anniversary of that date, I paid the outrageous price of $59.95 for a VHS copy, and the repeat viewings were as pleasant as th first. We later married, and this was her idea, too.
P.S.: I recommend "The Advocate" for those who like "Sirens".
P.P.S.: I agree for the most part with Eamon Buchanan's comments, but, the models were "painted"in the nude, not "painting", and it was the Anglican church that was upset, not the Catholic (the Campions could not have been married if they were Catholic). -
AaronCapenBanner9 December 2013John Duigan directed this sexy drama about Australian artist Norman Lindsay(played by Sam Neil) who has caused a scandal with his graphic(some say blasphemous) paintings. The church bishop sends idealistic young English Minster Anthony Champion(played by Hugh Grant) to try to persuade Lindsay to stop his painting, but he refuses, instead lecturing him and his wife Estella(played by Tara Fitzgerald) on their "prudish" ways, which the minster denies, but fails to notice how his own wife is intrigued by three very open women models also staying with Lindsay... Surprisingly good-natured film presents both sides evenly and intelligently, with no stereotyping. Quite provocative at times, but does at least offer everyone a happy ending.
-
tobydale30 January 2011OK - 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. -
hall89522 August 2007Some would say that Sirens is not taken seriously because of the abundant nudity in the movie. And yes, it does seem at times that the movie exists only to display exactly why model (and here, wannabe actress) Elle Macpherson was nicknamed "The Body". But perhaps the reason the movie is not taken seriously is because it simply isn't any good. The movie drags and drags and then drags some more. The plot never seems to get going. It's a movie that has no energy to it, it just painfully slogs along in hopelessly dull fashion. The film is utterly predictable, you know where this is going right from the beginning but it sure does take its sweet time in getting to that inevitable conclusion. The movie sets itself up as a statement on organized religion's view on sex. But any kind of statement the filmmakers hoped to make is lost because the movie is simply too boring to hold anyones attention long enough to get their point across. The whole enterprise is not helped by some rather clumsy acting, most notably from Macpherson who certainly looks nice but struggles to deliver dialogue in a believable fashion. Hugh Grant and Tara Fitzgerald are reasonably decent in their roles but it's not enough to save this enterprise. Predictable, tedious, dull and at times rather laughable...that's Sirens in a nutshell.
-
AJ-2019 October 1998This movie must be the most interesting Australian movie since "Mad Max"! It is quite funny and the acting is (almost) flawless.
This is (in my opinion) Hugh Grant's best acting (after "4 Weddings and a Funeral") role. Real life models Elle McPhearson (sorry about spelling), Kate Fisher and Portia deRossi play 3 young beautiful models who pose for a painter (Sam Neill).
Now the paintings aren't ordinary paintings! The girls are painting in the NUDE!! This stirs controversy in the Catholic Church and Hugh Grant a priest(!) is called in to investigate.
Don't be fooled, this film is filled with nudity and sex but it is very funny! British actress Tara Fitzgarald is hilarious in her role as the under-educated wife of Hugh Grant. Interesting Australian cinema! -
jboothmillard28 July 2013I 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!
-
lastliberal-853-25370814 September 2013A soft-core, high-minded daydream about the liberating sensuality of art. Sometimes the sirens in the film (Elle MacPherson, Kate Fischer and Portia de Rossi) tickle one another merrily, and sometimes they talk about whether sea slugs make a good aphrodisiac.
The story is based on a real artist, Norman Lindsay(Sam Neill)and there was a real Anglican priest (played by Hugh Grant) sent to convince him to withdraw his "Crucified Venus" from exhibition. The film is set on Campion's estate and features his work throughout.
It is a little wild, silly at times, and features explicit nudity and sexual situations. Perfect introduction to Hugh Grant's abilities.
Skintastic moment: Portia de Rossi and her pals pose for a painting, the subject of which seems to be hot chicks who show rack, rug and rear.
Bonus Skintastic Moment: Kate Fischer flashes her ass and a bit of full- frontal from a distance while wading, then continues to bare her breasts for a very long time. -
timtindy28 August 2003Let's see -- THIS hasn't been done before: repressed individual spends time with free spirits and lets loose. When done with compelling characters, it works. When done with these boring individuals, it doesn't. Pretty bad when Hugh Grant is lacking charisma and a naked Elle McPherson is lacking sensuality. The nudity in this film was not titillating at all in fact. But the film's message about marriage and commitment is immoral and fairly distasteful. Even worse, this movie was BORING. *spoiler alert* And how about that ending? Seemingly happy woman was actually unhappy and achieved frivolity and happiness through a lesbian encounter and a meaningless night of casual sex. That was all she needed to smile and be at ease with herself. Ugh.
1/10 -
wnterstar17 April 2006Sirens is the story of a preacher named Anthony Campion(Hugh Grant) and his wife, Estella (Tara Fitzgerald) who are sent to investigate Normal Lindsay (Sam Neill), an artist who has been accused of painting lewd pictures. They find the artist living with his wife and three beautiful models, none of whom have any problem with nudity.
Although shocked at first, Anthony and Estella find themselves being seduced by the beauty and sensuality around them and they are both changed forever by the visit.
This is a sexy movie that isn't about the sex. It is filled with sweeping vistas, and has a wonderful score. It's a great movie to sit with your significant other and watch! -
MarioB6 May 2000How can it be bad? It's an Australian film, and 95 % of their movies are always good. This is a film about erotism, it's also about puritanism. These subjects are shown with a gentle smile. I love the bright colors of this film, and also the creativity of some images (the dream where miss Fitzegerald are in the hands of the sirens.) It's very original and intelligent. Hugh Grant is funny in the role of Cary Grant (Sorry about that! I know that these guys had the same name, but they are so similar!) and Tara Fitzegerald is superb! We should see more of her in real movies (not TV movies) She was also great near Grant in Englishmen who went up etc. and near Ewan McGregor in Brassed off. She is one wonder of English cinema, with Polly Walker and Helena Bonham Carter. More more more movies from Australia and England!!!
-
Captain Ed23 June 2000Ho hum, another film where artists are unfettered and misunderstood by the Church and their neighbors, and who are just trying to express themselves while providing plenty of soft-core porn for the late-night cable crowd. The movie tries to dress itself up as a statement for freedom of expression, and of course we are subjected to the familiar stereotype of the stuffy, bumbling, hypocritical cleric. Too stupid to be really offensive, and at least Sam Neill is charming.
By the way, in response to the post that IMDB chose to run as the first comment, the church that was so upset by nudity in art was the ANGLICAN Church, not the Catholic Church. Catholic priests are not married.