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!!!

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.

I really loved this show. It has beautiful women, a good story, and good acting. By far the most breathtaking acting is from Tara Fitzgerald. She knocked this out of the park. Tara plays a somewhat reserved conservative wife of a religious husband. The church has sent the husband to review a very controversial painting that depicts a lot of nudity. The husband is supposed to review the painting and try to get the painter, expertly played by Sam Neil, to either tone down the painting or to simply withdraw it from the Museum exhibit. Both the husband but especially the wife are confronted by the painter, his wife and three beautiful models. The wife is soon put into a lot of compromising situations. Will she surrender her values? Will the husband be able to get the Painter to withdraw or change the painting? You will have a great time watching this show to find out.

First, this movie is a bit old so I don't quite know what would be a spoiler; so, just to be safe I checked the box. I suppose that I am also telling quite a bit of what's going on so, yes, if you haven't seen it, stop here, see it and then come back and see if you don't agree.No, it isn't very deep (as some here have intimated) but it could make you think deep thoughts if you follow the various threads that unfold.Venus Crucified (the blasphemous painting in question) is a pointed reference to the killing of the sacred feminine by the Christian Church (although I do not think that was intended by it's Messiah).The symbolism isn't terribly subtle either, there are snakes in the garden, for sure; but there are a number of references to the savagery of life in mid-twentieth century Australia - people eaten off by sharks and (other) snakes attacking children in a newspaper headline near the end. There was repeated references to the Titanic, too, including, so it seemed, that the minister and his wife may have sailed on it to Australia! (The sirens calling the ship to it's demise? The whole thing a dream of a passenger on that ship?? Who knows, eh?) The symbolism was a bit off in one scene that depicted the minister and bishop going through the museum without looking at any of the wonderful paintings along the gallery on the way to the offensive work; but the church is not above owning a huge collection of art, some of it quite controversial. That bit of 'ignorant indifference' didn't play too well on this viewer; but I suppose it was a jab at the tight-assed attitude of the clergy in general.The girls are charming in the old fashioned sense - just as the original sirens charmed sailors to their doom, they charmed the minister's wife to her 'moral doom'.Dream sequences were, like real dreams, sometimes hard to know if they were 'real' or not - just as Gidy is conned into thinking what she really saw was just her dream; and that dream was 'telling her' to do what she wanted to do in the first place.Near the end when Devlin catches the hammer, it all fell into perspective, not only for me but for Estella as well.I don't think this film was ever intended to be a deep, heavy look into any morality; it was a bit of a romp through the human condition leaving one with a little fatalistic approach to morality - life has many ugly sides (sharks, snakes, etc.) but leave room for a little fun too. The minister (Anthony/Hugh Grant) also allows that some things are best not told. There is a difference between not telling something and telling a lie, though; and that was left right out.Frankly the morality being sold in this flick is just a bit too frivolous for real life, at least in most settings. People do get hurt, lives are affected, and there are often consequences for those so-called harmless trysts. John Lennon would have us Imagine this and that but in the end he lived the good life off of the proceeds of his capitalistic ventures. That is how life is; this movie is how dreams are. All-in-all, it was nice dream. That's what movies should be; so in being that, it was a very good movie.