NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

christopher-underwood Plenty has been written that is hostile towards this film. Bad acting, no story, silly dialogue and erratic cinematography. And if I'm honest there is something in all of these comments and yet, I've always liked it. It can't just be the copious nudity and its not. Sam Neill plays a 'fictionalised' Norman Lindsay, controversial Australian painter and sculptor, and whilst it is a very laid back performance he manages to convince as the eccentric artist. There is something of D H Lawrence here as the church comes in for a not unreasonable bashing, lovely nubile nude ladies transport themselves about the place and the general drift is towards a more open way of living. Hugh Grant represents the old school attitude, complete with dog collar and Tara Fitzgerald his little wife begins to glimpse another world. The minimal period dressings are not very effective and some shots are awe inspiring whilst others more mundane but there is something infectious and endearing about the whole concoction and the bold and brazen nudity, male and female certainly helps things along.

SnoopyStyle Reverend Anthony Campion (Hugh Grant) and his uptight wife Estella (Tara Fitzgerald) are sent to rural Australia to talk reclusive eccentric artist Norman Lindsay (Sam Neill) into toning down his shocking paintings. There they find Lindsay's sexually progressive models and his family. Like the sirens of old, the couple could be pulled into rocky shores.Everything works in this charming little film. Hugh Grant is perfect as the bumbly fumbly embarrassed reverend. Tara Fitzgerald is wonderful as a volcano ready to blow. There is a wonderful light airy feel to the movie. Elle Macpherson does a confident model very well. It also marks a beautiful Portia de Rossi's first big movie as the shy model who doesn't do nudes.

aimew 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.

hannahoredsson God, I love this movie! I was about ten the first time I saw it and it has stuck with me ever since. It definitely makes my top five. It has a great way of telling stories of what it's like being proud outsiders, the detachment from the "normal" world, even the loneliness that follows, but also the togetherness in the little group where these "misfits" belong. The plot isn't all clear and leaves a few questions, but that merely helps the story and adds to it's mystery. It's sensual and fun and the included discussion about civilization vs. nature is off course very interesting. If you're longing to be seduced you should see it now!