Sirens (1994)

Just what I expected

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

A 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.

While it takes some time to declare itself as the story of the sensual awakening of the Tara Fitzgerald character, the movie brilliantly captures the Anglo-Saxon tension that arises whenever faced with the erotic. Hugh Grant is winningly Hugh Grant, the other characters are fun and believable in a scenario that manages to be both realistic and whimsical. The dialog is funny, the Australian geography is stunning, as are the naked forms of the women, who together manage to achieve more sensual nudity than a years' worth of French movies. Rachel Portman's score is fantastic, wonderfully mirroring Tara Fitzgerald's liberation, an act achieved through her own risk-taking, and then mentoring another woman through the same process. Hugh Grant may fail in his paramount plot goal but his character is more than rewarded with a wife whose outlook on life promises a new kind of open relationship.

This film is not simply about eroticism. You cannot judge this film by this subject alone. Obvious it is about the contradiction between sexual seduction and Christian morality some hundred years ago. But it is also a homage to 19the century (English) symbolist sensuality-painting. For instance Opelia (Millais 1852). The 'fatale women' were also an important subject in this time. That's why the film is called Sirens. The 'paintings' and the female actors shown, reminds me most of Belgian painter and illustrator Rops (1833-1898). The film seems in someway anachronistic, because in the time the cars you see in the film, the artists painted in a more modern way. In the time of these English painters the cars were coaches. Reading more about this film, I understood that Norman Lindsay was a real Australian artist in the film depicted in the 30's. When he really lived as in this film he was living the dream of this symbolistic painters. The film nevertheless is a very good try to let us see this imaginary world. For most(?) of us it is important to have art to escape from reality.

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.