It attempts to be 'artsy' but it seemed to me it failed in that totally, and when a film attempts artsy and fails it ends up looking pretentious, which I thought it was (my wife disagrees and has asked me to include that in her opinion it wasn't 'pretentious' but it was 'sensitive'.....).

If you have to watch one Hugh Grant film (and we've seen most of them!), make it this one.

Set in the 1930's, a catholic priest is sent to compel a famous artist from displaying an erotic painting that mixes religious with erotic themes that the church finds offensive. This repressed priest and his wife find themselves in the midst of an almost bacchanalian atmosphere, as the artist's models cavort around in a carefree, playful, sexually liberated manner. The real focus the movie really becomes the priest's wife, who starts to find herself drawn into experiences around her and frees herself of her own repressions.

The drawback to the movie is it's just not that entertaining and has no real plot. I enjoyed the imagery and the acting was top notch. But on the whole, I found it somewhat boring.

John's conclusion that it is "a wonderful colourful look at the Australian Outback and its early pioneers as a bonus" is a little wide of the mark. The Blue Mountains in which "Sirens" is set are less than two hours drive from Sydney and Norman Lindsay's house and land where it was all filmed is just over an hours drive from Sydney - hardly "the Outback" !! The house is now a Norman Lindsay museum - his paitings alone are well worth the visit - and the grounds are pretty much as seen in "Sirens".

As for "early pioneers" it is based on events that took place in the 1920s - hardly pioneers, other than in social attitudes !

But all of this just makes the Blue Mountains and Norman and the "set" for "Sirens" all that much more accessible for anyone visiting Sydney.