WRITTEN BY: John Duigan
CAST: Hugh Grant (Tony), Tara Fitzgerald (Stella), Sam Neill (Norman), Elle Macpherson (Sheila), Portia DeRossi (Giddy), Kate Fischer (Rose)
ONE WORD: Depends on your likes and dislikes.

Some films have a good premise and want to prove that they mean something. Other films have a great premise, and waste it. I wish that I could tell you, clearly, if SIRENS was an antsy film that wants to show something about an artist and his ways, or if this is a political crap shoot, where, even the artist is vain, and has nothing to say, except depict to depict the human body in as many gestures as he can come up with to insult a stupid audience.

If the film had walked the fine line and stayed with the artist, and not enter into the political arena, it might have created something interesting. Instead, the film takes a much more unusual role by mixing two opposites, the church and the filth, and then getting the church representative and his wife, to become jaded, just as the art is. And in between, it purports an open ended philosophy, that art is important, by sprouting a few sentences of meaningful words.

Well, even though the art works they show are nice, and some of the acting is not bad, this film suffers from the one thing that is more and more common these days. It's raunchy, and tries to be sexy. And because it is all teasing, and pretentious body exposure, the teasing looks fake. It destroys the art, and its real meaning.

Hugh Grant can't make up his mind whether he is to take this film seriously or not. Sam Neill doesn't care. Well, the ladies running around naked are nice, but do you know how many artists have any of these running around.? Next to none. It's just a movie. And not really that good a movie.




email.gif (12916 bytes)
Please email me with questions and/or comments
Pages Copyright 2009/2010/2011/2012/2013/2014/2015 Pedro Sena -- Last modified: 09/23/2015