Day of the Sirens

Day of the Sirens is a bad film. End of story. It may have the odd good thing in it, but it is a bad film. Saeed Jaffrey hammed beyond all belief, Rik Mayall blatantly couldn't give a toss and everyone else fell between panto and wooden. The plot is pathetic and badly writte, the dialogue is appalling, the camera work shaky at best, the sets and locations are terribly, continuity non-existent, the Spanish sub-plot irritating and pointless and the special effects were surely the result of a technician having a laugh. The production values are as low as you can get and one or two glaring inconsistencies in the plot and casting really do need to be pointed out to the director/writer. 1. Jewish boys are rarely named Christian. 2. They rarely have Irish Catholic mothers. 3. Elderly Asian gentlemen with strong accents are rarely called Albert Page. 4. Radio Juan is not funny. 5. Ripping off 'Seven' is not clever. Don't watch this film unless you're drunk and have a skip facility on your DVD player.

A City, it could be any large City is being attacked by a terrorist group, they strike erratically, killing seemingly for no reason or purpose, they have make no demands, their victims are of different nationalities, ages, religions, ages. 'Day of the Sirens' is a post 9/11 movie, a nightmare waiting to happen, a dramatisation of a City under attack, confused helpless. Stark and chilling drama that will make you loose sleep.

After loving the director's previous movie Love Life I was excited to catch his latest, shot on a micro-budget this British drama is incredible. I'll limit my comments about this film to opinions rather than a critical review, as there are many people, none on this site obviously, who are much more knowledgeable and qualified to give an educated critique. I just felt it deserved another positive comment to counter the many negative ones, it seems like the director Ray Brady has a hate campaign from some dispossessed individual intent in damming this original and inspired piece...which I don't really understand and can't explain except to attribute it to ignorance. If you read production notes on the film, you'll realize the writer and director purposely used hand-held cameras to heighten audience tension and to convey a certain sense of realism and to be less intrusive...i.e., not encroach on the actors performances; just acting as a passive observer. In my mind this is brilliance, especially for such an intense, emotionally charged film where capturing certain things on film can only be done a certain way once and numerous camera and lighting setups would constantly interrupt the creative flow. I guess if you don't enjoy a film, you're not very likely to read production notes or check out the films website to learn about how it was made. So for that reason, you can forgive the ignorance of those who commented on how bad it was for childish, superficial reasons rather than making valid intelligent points. If you found it difficult to follow, you might want to stick to less "artsy" fare that doesn't make you think and leaves your brain feeling mushier than when you came into the theatre. This film is emotionally driven, the story is carried forward by the characters and their situations rather than a structured plot. If you insist on linear story telling and can't open your mind to something a little more abstract, you'll have a hard time with this one. In my opinion any movie that evokes such a strong visceral and emotional reaction, be it tears or laughter or even anger is certainly worth seeing. The performances in Day of the Sirens speak for themselves...both the principle actors are phenomenal, Saeed Jaffrey and ESPECIALLY Rik Mayall blew me away. I always thought of him as a great comic actor; the feelings he can exhibit with a facial expression or even just the look in his eyes sent chills up my spine. Go see it, rent it, whatever...even if you end up not liking it, its worth a try. Very British, bigger than TV but maybe too small for the big screen (without big names, a sensible realistic budget and a sizeable P&A budget), I was lucky enough to see this at a festival and I highly recommend it though when it is available DVD.

I sat through the bad acting and cheap digital-camera feel, intrigued to see how the three separate storylines would eventually come together. Surprise, they didn't! Apart from the fact that all the 'central' events in the film took place on the same day, they had nothing to do with each other... or with anything else.

What a waste of time.

Saw this at a student friends house who has a collection of all of the directors other titles, and he watches them when he's wrecked and laughs himself silly. I however didn't quite see the funny side as I watched something that was quite honestly the worst film I've ever seen. Some of the scenes were so badly shot, lit, acted, directed and written, half the time I felt like the director was secretly mocking the audience - laughing at us while we watch open mouthed at this horrific display of poor acting, terrible dialogue and cheap hand held dodgy video camera-work.

The ultimate shot for me was when a gang of "commandos" storm a house that is about to explode, in a scene blatantly stolen from SPEED. I couldn't believe it when my friend pointed out to me that one of these "commandos" looked about 20 stone and had a ponytail! Another corker is when the lead actress (if you can call her that) is "sealed" in a car as their is a risk of chemical/nuclear contamination. However what they use to do the sealing is obviously shaving foam!!!!! It's like an early episode of Doctor Who, but without the snappy dialogue and convincing performances. Saaed Jaffery looks completely past his prime and in most scenes he can barely speak let alone act. The one moment when I nearly cried laughing is when he has to take his dog to the vets to be put down, and the dog is leaping around the place full of health and joy.

Bad, Bad, Bad...