losthorizon1937 This is my second favorite film of all time. If you're feeling down in the dumps, put this film on! A masterpiece that deserves re-appraisal. Clever, witty, perfectly cast, sexy, dreamy, masterful script and somehow an odd homage to The Titanic! Helps if you're athiest! Rachel Portmans music score alone is worth the price of admission but it's the sexual repression/awakening of Tara Fitzgeralds character Estella that steals the show. Discover the magic!!!

dimplet Hold the presses! Elle MacPherson can act! And so can Hugh Grant!I decided to give Grant another look in honor of his honorable role in exposing the phone hacking of celebrities by Rupert Murdoch's tabloids. I did not like Notting Hill because I couldn't shake the feeling Grant was just being Grant; Mickey Blue Eyes was better, but still marginal acting. I used to call him Hugh "One Grin" Grant because he only seemed to have two expressions: a wide grin and a deep frown. But perhaps part of the problem was the shallow material he had to act in. Or, more likely, I have not seen his best work. Sometimes actors do their most authentic work early on, and Sirens might qualify. But now I am curious what Grant will do next, presumably not for Fox Studios.With Sirens, Hugh Grant gets it right. He conveys a broader range of moods and emotions, though there are no histrionics. He relaxes out of his usual Hugh Grant persona, but not too much, as he is a British clergyman, though a relatively liberal one. He is confronted with a variety of unusual and embarrassing situations, where his reaction is key to the movie, and he gets it right. This time, it looks genuine. This time there is real chemistry with his co-star.I never would have guessed Elle MacPherson was a supermodel rather than an actress. There is none of the stiffness seen with some of the great beauties turned "actresses" of years past. Maybe she was just being herself, but whatever it is, I hope she keeps on doing it.The greatest actor of the cast is Sam Neill, though you might not guess it. Neill, who plays the real Norman Lindsay, provides the grounding for the story. He hardly says anything, but sometimes that is the performance that requires the most talent. And he is the one with the grin, though a subtle, sly one of understanding. (Mr. Grant, with all due respect, you don't need to flash a wide grin all the time. Look at Neill's more subtle grin which uses his eyes -- this could look good on you, too. Or you could just smile gently and sagely.)Tara Fitzgerald (not to be confused with Geena Davis) had by far the most challenging and central role, which she played to perfection. Doesn't exactly look like a vicar's wife, though. But neither does Grant. I also liked her in the delightful "Hear My Song."Music is by Rachel Portman, as fans of Chocolat might guess. The opening theme matches one in Chocolat. But most of the rest of the score is original and interesting. The shared musical theme is appropriate since the two movies share a sexual theme of repression and liberation. They both hark back to the Bacchae. Chocolat came later, and has the stronger score, but then it is a stronger movie. Sirens is more low-keyed. What is especially interesting about Sirens is not the plot, but the atmosphere of place and time it conveys, and the odd mood of the odd situation. This mood runs through the movie, and the music plays a role in sustaining that mood. There isn't so much of a plot as a situation, which is off-balanced and gives the story momentum. You naturally wonder how it will unfold, and that is what holds your interest.Some reviewers make a big deal about the similarity to a D.H. Lawrence novel, but I think Sirens is better, less dark and more willing to laugh at itself. And its actual source was a real painter, whose works appear in the film. It is fitting, under the circumstances, that Sirens is set in Australia, the home of Rupert Murdoch, who would have been born around the time of the movie, which is set in the 1930s. The impression of Australians, men at least, in this outback town is hardly favorable. They don't seem to set much store in manners or grooming. But then Neill's painter character doesn't place much store in pretension, either, unlike the British. I guess there can be something said for that. I wonder if we can find any of Murdoch's roots in these characters?Some people will watch Sirens for the beautiful women. But John Duigan - - director, writer and bit player -- has created a truly original, interesting movie, something you don't encounter every day.

MBunge This 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.

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.