Conference bookie::movies

The movie is called SIRENS and the spelling is Siskel & Ebert.  I believe 
that Sirens opens up in Boston this week in a couple of theatres.

	/jeff

    Basenote title changed by moderator, just to feel powerful.
    
    [I noticed the S&E review of this over the weekend, and while they were
    waxing lyrical about its celebration of the beauty of the human body, I
    was dying to ask them how many of those bodies were male; the review
    only mentioned the women... odd, that. ;-)]
    
    -b

    
    >Basenote title changed by moderator, just to feel powerful.
    
    
    	Well, I, for one, am not overly impressed.
    
    	Anyone else?  8^)
    
    							GTI

    I am overly impressed. 
    
    RD

    I'm powerfully impressionable.
    
    -b, you always had The Force; glad you can feel it  :-)
    
    Leslie

    re.0
    
    It must be an Australian movie, not an Austrian !
    
    Andrea

Yes, the movie IS Australian. Norman Lindsay WAS Australian, & Elle McMherson 
is STILL Australian.
(I don't think it has opened here yet)

Chele_in_Sydney

Gee, is that what/who this film is about?  I remember
Norman Lindsay's work.  In fact I suggested we name
one of the OZY conference rooms after him.  I, of course,
was thinking in terms of "Norman Lindsay's Bears".  The
gutter crowd with whom I worked could only think
of Norman Lindsay's nudes.  We wound up with rooms
named for Arthur Boyd, Lloyd Rees, Albert Namatjira,
and Arthur Streeton (appropriately garnished with
their paintings).  Landscapes, the odd Ned Kelly,
but no nudes (OR bears).

dcl

    Re .3: From other reviews I've read, it appears that the men get to be
    nude, too. [FWIW, Sam Neill and Hugh Grant are in the cast. Apparently,
    Harvey Keitel couldn't make it. ;-)] I still can't tell whether it's
    something I'd enjoy, and am eagerly awaiting an actual review from
    someone here who's seen the thing... From the clips I've seen it seems,
    frankly, rather silly, but then clips are notoriously unreliable. [And
    sometimes silly is a desirable quality...]
    
    -b

  The Boston Globe gave it 3 stars out of 4 and according to the ad Siskel
and Ebert gave it two thumbs up.

  George

re                <<< Note 488.9 by SMAUG::LEHMKUHL "H, V ii 216" >>>
>                             -< Norman Lindsay??? >-
>
>Gee, is that what/who this film is about?  I remember

I had a sheltered childhood - I first "met" him as a novelist!

Chele

Saw "Sirens" on Saturday (at Nickolodean in Boston) and thought it was 
a wondeful movie.  Somewhat reminiscent of "The Piano", but I like Sirens
better (for one thing, it was less confusing!).  Lot's of symbolism.
Quite a bit of nudity (male and female).  And of course, Elle (sigh!).
I could write more, but I already described it a bit in =wn= and besides,
after you see it, you'll know what it's about :-).
        Craig

    Finally got to see this movie over the weekend. I loved it. Quick
    sysnopsis:  possible spoilers.
    
    An artist submits a collection of art the artists' view of 
    lust. One picture showed a woman on a cross. The church got very upset 
    about this and pressured the museum to pull the picture. The director
    pull the picture and asked the artist to submit another picture less
    offensive to the church. The artist wrote back if the picture was
    pulled he would go to court. The picture stands. The church send a free 
    thinking young vicar to try to talk compromise to the artist. The vicar
    stops by to talk to the artist and because of a train wreck they end up
    staying for a week. The movie show the alternate life style of the
    artist and his extended family: the artist a recluse who loves to
    shock people. His wife an early model, his two kids, three models two
    free spirited and one inocent, and the handy man/model. The movie
    mainly covers the stay with the artist. 
       The vicar is temped by the life style but never really become part 
    of it. The vicar's wife is coverted from a proper saintly young wife to a 
    free spirited confident woman.  The movie starts out showing the ovious 
    seduction of the vicar's wife but by the end of the movie it is not 
    seduction any more but growth of the wife as a seperate distinct person. 
    The vicar is not unaware of what is going on. In one scene he explain some
    thing are better of not said and he is not a saint. He think couples 
    should have some secrets from each other so they can still suprise each 
    other at 90.
       The dialog is sparce. Most of the movie is carried by a few words a look
    or an expression. The movie has quite a few funny parts. The sexuallity 
    is suttle but intense. Nudity of females in the movie is common. Nudity of
    the male handy man/model is more than I have ever seen in a main stream 
    movie but no where near equal. 
       The church is shown to be an out look on life that the artist
    disagrees with. The discussions of sexuality and the church show both men 
    to be thinkers. The artist has a very stong base to his life style and the
    vicar is well read and a good fencer when it comes to conversation. His
    down fall is he doesn't see the depth and complexity of the situation
    around him. 
       The models where stunning. The story was amusing as it showed the 
    a cmplex alternate life style(pro and con). The dialog was used well.
                   ****/****  
                         Jeff Peter

Just my opinion, but either I missed something or this movie had very little to 
say.  But, I certainly enjoyed watching Elle McPherson in the nude as much as
the next person.  Oh, and to enjoin the moderator again for .4, women are the
best nudes anyway.

Good summary and interpretation of the film.  I enjoyed
it, but I'd score it 75% overall.  Loved the beautiful
Blue Mountains scenery, sounds, wildlife (the "danger-
ous Australia" theme was a hoot).  The single male
nude (not Sam or Hugh) was not bad at all.

I especially liked Sam Neill's job as Norman Lindsay.
He came across as a VERY interesting character about
whom you'd like to know more.  I also liked the 
communication of the very loving marriage between
Norman and Rose, in spite of/because of the "alternative
lifestyle" around them.

Worth a look at matinee or video prices, certainly.

    
    i thought it was delightful and charming, though certainly not
    profound. a treat for the eyes. if anything, i would compare it
    with 'enchanted april'.
    
    ***� (including � star for breasts- and what breasts they are- and dick)
    

    I just saw this last night, and loved it.  Very funny and different. 
    Hugh Grant is wonderful - talented and adorable.
    
    Lorna
    

  I saw this movie over the weekend and I have to say that I was disappointed.
It came across as a below average Masterpiece Theater rendition of a James
Joyce novel spliced together with a Discovery travelogue of Australia and one of
Playboy's Playmate calendar videos. 

  It did have moments of really fine acting by the male and female lead (the
clergy man and his wife) and the models were very lovely to look at but there
was no plot that I could detect, the morality argument was tired at best, their
attempt at symbolism was weak, and the story had a tendency to drag, especially
when they were sitting around the diner table. 

  It did have it's moments. I've never seen a funny snake before but the one in
the movie made me chuckle. And there were some good jokes, particularly near
the beginning but other than that the story was all window dressing with no
window. 

  If you really want to see El McPherson, get one of her exercise videos or
the latest Sports Illustrated Swim Suit video and save yourself the trouble of
trying to follow the dialogue. 

  **,
  George