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.

John 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.

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.