User reviews

Mike Leigh is perhaps best-known for his serio-comic social-realist dramas about contemporary British life, films like "Abigail's Party" and "Life Is Sweet", but he also seems to be developing a sideline in biographies of nineteenth-century cultural figures. First there was "Topsy-Turvy" about Gilbert and Sullivan, and now we have "Mr. Turner" about the life and career of the artist J. M. W. Turner. Or rather about the latter part of his life and career; when we first meet him he is already middle-aged.

Leigh has described Turner as "a great artist: a radical, revolutionary painter," and this is undoubtedly true; Turner's work, especially his later work, seems to prefigure Impressionism, perhaps at times even abstract Modernism. We must not, however, allow our appreciation of the progressive side of Turner's work to degenerate into that lazy cliché about the great artist starving in a garret, scorned or neglected by his contemporaries but later discovered by a grateful posterity. (Very few great artists, except perhaps Van Gogh, have ever conformed to this stereotype). He was greatly admired by his contemporaries, was praised in the highest terms by many critics, especially Ruskin, became a full Royal Academician while still in his twenties, never lacked for patrons and died a wealthy man. By contrast his great contemporary and rival, John Constable, whose art seems much less radical to our eyes, had a much harder struggle to establish himself.

Leigh's purpose in making the film was to "examine the tension between this very mortal, flawed individual, and the epic work, the spiritual way he had of distilling the world." This tension is something very obvious in the film. Turner, especially in later life, was noted for his eccentricity. Unlike many working-class Georgians and Victorians who rose in the world, he never attempted to hide his humble origins. He was untidy, had no social graces and could be rude and tactless. He never married but had a number of mistresses. He was estranged from the first of these, Sarah Danby, and refused to acknowledge his two illegitimate daughters by her. (Sarah appears in the film as do two other mistresses, Hannah Danby Sarah's niece and Turner's housekeeper and Sophia Booth, a seaside landlady).

And yet this uncouth, boorish-seeming man was an artist not only of genius but also of a deep spirituality. His obsession with accurately recording light and atmospheric conditions- he once had himself strapped to the mast of a ship so that he could paint a snowstorm- was born not only of a concern with fidelity to nature but also of a belief that light was a visible manifestation of the Divine. (His last words are said to have been "The sun is God").

How, then, could any actor hope to play so contradictory an individual? The answer to this question comes from Timothy Spall, one of Leigh's favourite actors. Spall is someone I have normally thought of as a "character actor", but here he gets the chance to prove himself as a leading man and makes the most of it. His Turner is a grumpy old man, and in his dealings with women something of a dirty old man as well, forever grunting and spitting and forever speaking in a sort of Cockney whine, and yet we are never allowed to forget that underneath his unpromising exterior he is a sublime artist. This is probably the finest performance I have seen Spall give; it won him "Best Actor" at the Cannes Film Festival and I hope that the Academy will bear him in mind when it comes to next year's Oscars. There is insufficient space to single out all the deserving supporting performances, although I should mention Martin Savage as Turner's friend and fellow-painter Benjamin Haydon, forever trying to borrow money off him, Paul Jesson as Turner's father, to whom he was very close, and Joshua McGuire in a comic turn as an effeminate, lisping Ruskin, very different to the way Greg Wise portrayed him in the recent "Effie Gray".

The other outstanding feature of the film is its visual beauty. Leigh and his cinematographer Dick Pope were clearly aiming to make it one of those films where every shot looks like a painting in its own right, and certainly succeed in this ambition. Some cinematic biographies of great artists, such as "Girl with a Pearl Earring" about Vermeer, do succeed in capturing the distinctive "look" of their subject, but I think that Leigh and Pope were not actually aiming to make every shot look like a Turner; their palette of colours, for example, is rather too muted for that. Possibly they felt that the peculiar luminosity of Turner's work would be too difficult to reproduce on film. There are, however, some memorable shots, such as the opening scene by the river in Holland, complete with windmill, and the one where Turner watches "the fighting Temeraire" being towed up the Thames, thereby getting the inspiration for one of his best-known works.

I am not sure if "Mr Turner" quite justifies the label "masterpiece" which some have tried to pin on it; it can at times be too slow-moving for that. Spall's wonderful acting, however, and Pope's striking cinematography make it a film that stands out from the crowd. 8/10

Although previous movies about artists haven't set the bar very high, 'Mr Turner' is one of the most authentic films about an individual following this occupation. Director Mike Leigh makes no attempt to string together a conventional biography of Britain's greatest landscape painter - his fragmented account simply observes a variety of the artist's interactions with his beloved father, wealthy patrons, colleagues, critics and mistresses during his later years.

JMW Turner was born and raised the son of a London barber, and although he became the house-guest of aristocrats, he never adopted the persona of a cosmopolitan sophisticate. The film follows his restless workaholic progress from studio to exhibition opening, from brothel to stately home, and on to rented rooms in cheap lodging houses bordering the subject matter which he loved to paint. The painter's early work was relatively conventional as he mimicked the styles of some illustrious predecessors. During the latter part of his life - financially secure and with his reputation established - he embarked on a series of ambitious paintings which anticipated the styles of artists who arrived on the scene several decades afterward. Turner's coarse manners and social awkwardness were infamous, but they are probably exaggerated for dramatic effect in this portrayal. However that's a minor gripe - at the center of the film is Timothy Spall's fine portrayal of an eccentric virtuoso going about the business of being an artist.

Four years ago, Mike Leigh released one of the finest films of his oeuvre. I saw Another Year at the London Film Festival gala premiere and I still consider it the only perfect film of this decade thus far. As a result, expectations for his long awaited followup Mr. Turner were very high. Especially as it's ostensibly his most ambitious, even moreso than Topsy-Turvy, also a period drama, that ultimately won 2 Oscars, the only Oscars any of his films ever won. Nevertheless, he's frequently a gift basket receiver at the ceremonies, garnering obligatory screenplay nominations and the odd directing nom, the last of which being for Vera Drake 10 years ago. His organic storytelling, balance of abstract concepts, ability to orchestrate extraordinary performances and his sardonic sense of humour resonate with critics and audiences alike. However, he's not always a crowd pleaser, and Mr. Turner in particular has divided audiences, though not enough to hinder its current awards progress. It's clear to see why. This biopic of the visionary 19th century artist J.M.W. Turner is dense and cryptic. In Leigh's impeccable attention to detail, not just in the production and costume designs, the language is authentic to the convoluted dialect of the upper class of the period and thus it's hard to follow the sparse plot, even for fans. It's unusual for Leigh to adapt a true story, he often starts from scratch, but true to his form his script here defies traditional structure. It's a liberating free form style, sampling scattered moments of Turner's life, not building to anything specific but just exploring what shaped his idiosyncratic perspective. As a result, the film has grit hard to find elsewhere, and although it's difficult to decipher, it's enchanting for some. Headlining the film is Timothy Spall's colossal performance. He's always been a highlight of Leigh's films when he's been involved, especially his knock out performances in Secrets & Lies and All Or Nothing. This is the role he was born to play. Tossing narrative aside, the film's primary concern is the character study of Turner, a brilliant but flawed man, and each sequence adds layers upon layers of dimensions to him as they swirl in anguish. Spall wears those emotions on his sleeve with a perpetual sneer, grumbly grunts and a piercing stare. The moments where he breaks down have the weight of an earthquake. He's at once a force of nature and has a tender vulnerability. But as illustrated by the exquisite opening shot, he is above all a man of his art and watching Turner paint with a chaotic elegance is fascinating, especially as the results develop over the film. The ensemble around Spall gives ample support, including the fleeting appearances from familiar faces such as the seething Ruth Sheen as the bitter mother of his estranged children and the delightful Lesley Manville as a sprightly scientist who conducts an art orientated experiment. The standouts however are the warm glow of Marion Bailey, Turner's landlady of his second home and mistress, and the anxious agony of Dorothy Atkinson, Turner's housekeeper who he frequently engages in sex but who suffers from a disfiguring skin disease. Bailey has her great moments, especially when she's overwhelmingly flattered, but Atkinson in particular has such heartbreaking conviction that she bursts from the background of her scenes. What makes the film Leigh's most ambitious project is the cinematography. He's always had a great eye for blocking and making the kitchen sink cinematic, but Dick Pope's work here broke the mould. It's obvious to call it Turner-esque, but that's the intention. It's almost like a David Lean precision of waiting for a cloud to move in the right place. It was indeed whenever Leigh and Pope encountered landscapes like this on other films that inspired them to pursue this film. Some shots cover more ground than he covered in the entirety of his early films. Not only are the outside shots beautifully composed, but also the inside, using wide angles to keep the grand scale. A collaborator since Happy-Go-Lucky, composer Gary Yershon's forlorn oboe contributes to the rich ominous tone. It's interesting that for a film about art and colour that it's saturated with browns, blacks and greys. The inherently meandering plot does lead it to becoming bloated, but it attempt to be an insight the many different facets of Turner's life and how that feeds into his work, something applicable to all the great artists. It also considers themes of legacy, one perhaps self-aware in hindsight, but important in context. It's a complex film, and it needs another viewing until I'm fully ready to embrace it. As like life, it ends unresolved and I'm still not sure what to make of it. I must be one of the few people who didn't feel it was too long, but only because I was hungry for something more conclusive. Leigh doesn't make it easy for us, but gives us everything to work with. For what I can digest so far, it's a gargantuan achievement. Due to that inaccessibility and the length of the film, awards attention outside of critic's awards is unlikely. Perhaps it could get a couple of BAFTA nominations, Leigh is not the sweeper people think he is there but it will no doubt get noms for Spall and Best British Film. If there were any justice, it would get Cinematography, Production Design and Costume Design across the board as for even people who didn't like the film can't deny their prowess. Leigh may miss out on that Original Screenplay nomination as the film is looser than his usual output, but particularly because the dialogue needs a double take. It is going to be difficult to imagine where Leigh will go from here but Mr. Turner duly satisfies a thirst for now. 9/10

We always knew that "Mr Turner" would not be a conventional costume picture any more than it would be a conventional biopic. It is, after all, a Mike Leigh film and Mr Leigh doesn't do 'conventional'. Of course, he normally concerns himself with the vagaries of contemporary middle-class culture, poking fun at, and then finding the bleeding heart of, the little people who inhabit his very personal world. (Leigh is, perhaps, the only writer/director who can crack us up and break our hearts simultaneously).

"Mr Turner" isn't the first time he has looked to the past nor to real historical figures for his material. With "Topsy-Turvy" he created the world of Gilbert and Sullivan and 'The Mikado'. As musical biopics go it is, perhaps, unique. Now with "Mr Turner" he takes us deep into the life of William Turner, arguably the first great 'modern' painter and almost certainly the greatest of all English painters, and in doing so has created the least stuffy costume picture I have ever seen. Of the several masterpieces Leigh has given us "Mr Turner" may be the finest.

It begins when Turner was already in middle-age and established as England's premier painter and it follows him until his death. It reveals him to be a man of many contradictions, sharing his later life mainly with two women, (he had long since disregarded his shrewish wife and grown-up daughters whose very existence he always denied). For sexual favours he turned to his housekeeper Hannah Danby while preferring the company of the widow Mrs Booth with whom he lodged part of the year in Margate, (Danby never knew of Booth's existence until just before Turner's death). He could be both cruel and kind in equal measure, both to his contemporaries and to those he professed to care about and he certainly had a temper.

We don't learn a great deal about his technique as a painter though we do see him, briefly, at work, including a wonderful scene, one of several great set-pieces, where he adds a daub of paint to one of his canvases at the Royal Academy's Exhibition. It's not really that kind of film. Leigh is more interested in observing the man and getting inside his skull and in this he is greatly helped by Timothy Spall's magnificent performance as Turner, capturing the man mostly in a series of grunts. Spall's Turner doesn't go for deep, philosophical conversations on the nature of art. He seems happiest making small-talk with Mrs Booth and when, in another of the film's great set-pieces, the conversation veers into the critical appraisal of a fellow artist he is quick to debunk the pretentious John Ruskin who obviously likes the sound of his own lisping voice.

Spall, of course, is just the lynch-pin of a terrific ensemble. No-one puts a foot wrong, (including Leigh regulars Ruth Sheen and Lesley Manville), but one must really single out Dorothy Atkinson as the unfortunate and much maligned Danby and Marion Bailey as Mrs Booth. Both women are superb, giving us characters that are much more than mere historical sketches. There is something deeply moving in their silent acceptance of Turner's foibles, (and while Leigh's dialogue is splendidly 'of the period', it's often in the silences that the film is most effective). Credit, too, to Dick Pope's superb cinematography which captures perfectly the paintings without seeming in any way slavish. Indeed, of all films made about artists this may be the finest. I don't doubt for a moment that it's a masterpiece.

The outstanding merit of this film is its realism. One may question what the point is of exposing and anatomizing the worst sides of icons, they would most certainly have strongly minded it themselves, especially Mr. Turner here, who isn't spared for a moment, allowed freely to grunt and growl his distasteful ways all through the entire film, almost as if the point was to make him out as grotesque as possible; but the success and great interest of the film is its way of catching that age and times - it is perfectly convincing all the way. It is also true to Turner as a painter personality, showing his later life very appropriately as paintings like taken directly from his humdrum squalidness of a private life of a rather repulsive and pathetic nature, no matter how rich and successful he was. This character of a series of paintings of a painter's life makes a conventional story unnecessary - the realism and picturesqueness of this fascinating Dickensian world made so true and convincing compensates the lack of further deserts. The highlight is the great exhibition scene in the middle of the film with all the artists and critics together minutely studying each other's works with comments and gossip - admirably like taken directly out of that reality. The quality of Mr. Turner's actual paintings are quite enough to further make this art film completely satisfactory as a good enough accomplishment of its ambitions.

I hated it... I sighed and tutted and moved around in my seat... and then about a third of the way through it won me over. In that respect (and in many others respect) it's actually a lot like a Turner.

The initial scenes of the movie, which are very irritating to sit through, set the rest up well, lots of loud stomping on wooden floorboards, dry interiors in Turneresque palettes Timothy Spall making more grunting noises than any actor should be able to and still be taken seriously... stomp stomp stomp bang bang bang, hoarse shouting instead of dialogue, character introductions so perfunctory and stark they're almost parodic of the cinematic vernacular. The movie just screams with the kind of self-absorbed worthiness and obsession with human frailty that gives 'art films' a bad name... The wife shows up and harangues Turner at a volume that would transcend satire... there's an extended sequence during which a contemporaneous artist's career is commented on, vociferously and cruelly, by a group of critics/artists/patrons as he stomps off over the fields, this scene plays nothing like a conversation, but rather as if the script writer had typed out a series of quotes from a biography...Turner molests his housekeeper in the gruntiest, unsexiest way possible but it's SO clumsy and awkward the scene burns itself out and it just looks totally lifeless...actors expending effort poorly...

But the movie carries on like this with such gusto and wholeheartedness that it eventually became quite difficult (for me, at any rate) to remain cynical and detached. I did find myself immersed in the life of the man.

Timothy Spall's performance is completely over the top, and actually rather unpleasant to experience. Grunt, bash, bang, smash, grunt, growl, stomp, bash, grunt... it's almost a cartoon. You certainly can't come away from this movie liking the man you've just watched. He's an extremely annoying man. But as the movie progresses new flavours enter the character and it becomes clear that this movie isn't really a story at all, it really is primarily a portrait (rather as Turner's landscapes often seem more like portraits... so moody and full of consequence and meaning). Should I be disappointed at that? Perhaps I should, but I wasn't. Judging the movie on how it achieves it's intentions I should probably give it a 10... (Only I think it went on too long).

The scene that made me realise that the film-maker was fully aware of how I felt about this man I was watching came near the end when Turner's popularity is waning and he attends the Academy exhibition to be confronted with the Pre-Raphaelites. He starts sniggering. Nowhere in the movie is any attempt to explain his art or his theory of his art or the theory of any of the art contemporaneous with his and yet the scene makes perfect sense.

Very nicely done.

It is like his art. I don't like Turner, but I can't really *dismiss* Turner as I might someone more widely "respected" like Mondrian or Lichtenstien... or...(eyeroll)...Rothko.

There's a scene with an elephant. Mike Leigh spends some time on getting this scene right. I think it might mean something... Such a long time it's been since a movie made me actually *ponder* on whether or not I liked it... That's got to be worth something.

Mike Leigh's "Mr Turner", a 2 1/2 hour movie had me so fascinated that it flew by. As an enraptured audience member I felt like a fly on the wall to witness Mr. Turner's life and creations of art that were depicted with such extraordinary realism. I felt on a gut level how this man's wonderful art was inspired by his feelings and the world surrounding him. There were so many wonderfully chosen moments and the scenery was so detailed and - thank God- lacking any Hollywood glamour. The characters were extremely well researched and portrayed to such a degree that I had the feeling I got to live in 1850's England for the 2 1/2 hours. There was not one moment of "acting' in this movie. How refreshing and inspiring! Timothy Spall's portrayal of Mr Turner was amazing in its detail - He inhabited the role 100 %. He embodied the painter to the last brush stroke. Equally wonderful were the women and everybody else in this brilliantly crafted movie. I shall see it again in case I have missed any detail.

Immediately I noticed this film advertised as being directed by Mike Leigh, I checked the cast list of "Mr Turner" (Mr T) and noticed some familiar names he cast from the 1999 film "Topsy Turvey" (TT) - a biopic about Gilbert & Sullivan and specifically about how "The Mikado" was created by the famous lyricist and composer.So in "Mr Turner" we had Timothy Spall in the title role while in TT he played Richard Temple.The physical makeup appearance of Dorothy Atkinson as Hannah Danby was very different after 15 years having played Jessie Bond in TT.Martin Savage who played George Grossmith in TT played Benjamin Robert Haydon in Mr T.Finally Lesley Manville - Lucy Gilbert in TT surprisingly played a scientist Mary Somerville in Mr T.This appears to be a coterie of some of Mike Leigh's favourite actors.Other directors like Mel Brooks similarly cast favourite actors in their films.

I learnt that Timothy Spall took two years in developing his characterisation of Joseph Mallord William Turner and that a real artist was engaged in giving him lessons in Turner's art technique.Being an amateur artist myself I would have liked to see more shots of him painting though rather than grunting.There is always a dichotomy between the arts when a biopic is produced in how much screen time you give to the central character's discipline and how much to acting out their life.In this case the producer has to cater for cinema goers who do not know about Turner and his art.Other Victorian notables who appeared in "Mr Turner" were Queen Victoria & Prince Albert, The art critic John Ruskin & John Constable (James Fleet).I also noticed a painting by Dante Gabriel Rossetti who often used Elizabeth Siddall as his model, since the pre-Raphaelite movement was beginning towards the end of Turner's life.References to Railways, The Great Exhibition of 1851 added a topical scientific & dramatic flavour.Most of Turner's most popular paintings were on display, most notably "The Fighting Temeraire", "Steam Fire & Air" and "Slave Ship Throwing Slaves (in a storm into the waves)".

I attended with my wife in one of the first viewings of "Mr Turner" when it went on general release on 1/11/14.I enjoyed TT a little more since this film of Mike Leigh had the additional joy of hearing G&S and I therefore gave Mr T 7/10 and TT 8/10.

First: if you think the film-event of the year is the latest James Bond, then, obviously you should not go and see this film. (There are so many reviewers here with the opinion that this is a boring, plot less film that this seems to be something needing to be pointed out.) In fact, what we have here is a film with much humour, acted out in scenes and in somewhat appropriately arcane dialogue. There is drama and touching depictions of the human condition. And as for plot, we are given some engaging beautiful scenes from the life of Mr. Turner, as indeed we would have learnt to expect from Mr.Mike Leigh. Personally, if I had to name a favourite Mike Leigh film, it would have been All Or Nothing, but now, after experiencing this rich tapestry of depth, history and beauty, I have to conclude that the film Mr.Turner is so far, for all involved in this project of collaboration, a most profound crowning achievement. Take part of it with open eyes, ears, hearts and minds.

It's the first half of the 19th century. Mr. Turner (Timothy Spall) is a grumpy respected painter in the Royal Academy of Arts. His newest unconventional style causes controversy. His beloved elderly father dies. His children's mother hates him. His housekeeper Hannah Danby is his sometimes sexual outlet. He rents a seaside room and has an affair with his landlady Sophia Booth after her husband's death. His many friends include scientist Mary Somerville, rare for her times, and bitter failing painter Haydon.

This is not a plot driven movie. It takes a couple of hours before the drama starts to pick up. This is very much about Spall's immersive performance. The character doesn't really change. After 15 minutes, one gets the full sense of his personality. The movie is generally slow with a few explosive scenes. The exhibition scene with the many Academy artists paint a complete picture of Turner and his place among his peers. This is a brilliant performance looking for a more intense plot.

Many of the aspects of this film, in fact all of the aspects of this film, are great, bar one. Unfortunately, that aspect is the most important. The cinematography is outstanding, capturing amazing scenes and putting Turner in his paintings before he's painted them. The scenery in the period locations is also first class. The acting is perfect - the maid, Hannah, Turner, his father - in fact all the cast are excellent. But what lets it down, and what is unforgivable, is that even with an understanding of Turner's life this "biopic" doesn't tell a story. It is an endless series of scenes that attempt to be clever and give you a thousand windows into his life. But those windows are just that - they don't hint at a broader life, they just give you an impression of the man that you could get from a ten second description of him. The critics, I think, forgive a lack of story, but viewers - quite rightly - expect something more. There can be no spoilers for this film, there's no story to spoil.

We regularly attend Roger Ebert's Film Festival and before Mr Ebert's death, Timothy Spall was one of the event's special guests. He was there for a showing of Hamlet, I think, and I remember that he was charming and more fun to listen to than I expected. I hadn't really thought of him as a particularly impressive actor but, once again, Roger was right to single him out.

His talents are in full display here enriched by one of the most meticulous productions I've ever seen. The supporting cast is as flawless as any lead could ever ask for, as if everyone could see how unusually good the movie was to become. I particularly enjoyed every move and word that came out of his housekeeper, Hannah, unforgettably played by Dorothy Atkinson.

The subject of the movie, the last part of the life of the English artist J M W Turner, is not the stuff of great drama. The man was an eccentric in his later years, and not a particularly pleasant man. But what sustains the movie is the brilliant insight into 19th century English life. Every one of those characters in English novels who never really quite felt true to life is made undeniably real here. And the thing is, it's being done by Englishmen who are not shying away from full disclosure.

The thing is I usually wait for the DVD with English movies so that I can use the captions, but our local art theater was so beckoning and as it turns out, I needn't have worried. Often the dialog was impossible to make out, but somehow it didn't matter at all. It's not that kind of movie. It's long, but not slow, and I at least enjoyed every minute of it. The opportunity to be enthralled by such talented people is no everyday thing.

Let's start with the good - it's beautifully shot and acted. That's it. The film lacks any element of storyline. It begins with a shot of Turner in Holland. But why? We're never told. He goes to Margate to paint. But why there instead of some other part of Britain? We're never told. He gets tied to the mast of a ship in a storm. But that's almost a stand-alone scene. His housekeeper has some sort of progressive disease but we're never told what it is or why she had it. I believe that Turner had a fairly contentious relationship with Constable but all we get here is a very brief scene in which Constable walks out in response to what he considers to be a slight on the part of Turner. If the relationship was as acrimonious as I believe it's reported to have been, couldn't Mike Leigh have used this to greater effect?

Overall the film looks as if somebody has been through a biography of Turner, used a highlighter pen to pick out important episodes and they've been stitched together as a complete piece. As a result, the movie is nothing more than a series of largely disjointed vignettes and represents 3 hours in a cinema to no good effect.

Bringing on screen the life & career of one of the most prolific, gifted & distinguished painters to have ever lived, Mr. Turner could've been a highly fascinating & interesting biopic as the icon it tries to resurrect on the film canvas was considered a highly controversial figure of his era but what it instead turns out to be is a 150 minutes of mostly lifeless cinema that feels twice as long.

Set in mid-nineteenth century, the story of Mr. Turner concerns the last 25 years in the life of the esteemed English painter, J.M.W. Turner. And although the plot does offer glimpses of what drove or inspired the man & his work over the years, its major emphasis is actually on the flawed individual beneath all the fame & recognition who was both admired & despised by everyone.

Written & directed by Mike Leigh, the problem I have with Mr. Turner is that the film is far too longer than it needs to be & is filled with many sequences that add nothing to the story. Production design is commendable, Cinematography puts some breathtaking images on the screen, Editing is a huge letdown & its background score mostly keeps revolving around a single track.

Coming to the performances, Mr. Turner has only one interesting character in it & that's Turner himself, played magnificently by Timothy Spall who also won Best Actor for this role at Cannes. It's a brilliant, committed & thorough performance from the underrated actor who grunts his way throughout the film but without him, I don't think I would've managed to sit through this one.

On an overall scale, Mr. Turner is full of moments that rarely play any significance to the story being told. The scenes that are required to be trimmed are present for an extended period of time & the ones which could've benefited from more screen time are cut abruptly. There's a lot to admire about its camera-work & Spall's performance but as a biopic, it's surprisingly unappealing for the most part.

Based on the life and career of British artist J. M. W. Turner, 'Mr. Turner' is Superbly Directed by Mike Leigh, but Inconsistently Written! And Timothy Spall is convincing in his portrayal of the late artist.

'Mr. Turner' Synopsis: An exploration of the last quarter century of the great, if eccentric, British painter J.M.W. Turner's life.

'Mr. Turner' does work, but only in parts. The biggest problem, however, with the film, is its running-time & its erratic Screenplay. The film goes on and on for nearly 150-minutes, and while Leigh's Screenplay is engaging in parts, but at times, it isn't. The second-hour doesn't work, although the culmination is nicely handled.

Leigh's Direction is the highpoint of the enterprise. No two options on that! His work here is Oscar-Worthy. I wish I could've said the same thing about his Screenplay. A Special Mention for the stunning Cinematography by Dick Pope. Editing is far from flawless. Art & Costume Design are excellent.

Performance-Wise: As mentioned before, Spall's portrayal of Mr. Turner, is convincing. Dorothy Atkinson is fantastic. Marion Bailey, also, is in terrific form. Paul Jesson has a brief role, but he leaves a mark, with a solid show.

On the whole, 'Mr. Turner' is a fairly good watch, but a better Screenplay would've made it great!

A biopic on the life of J.M.W. Turner (1775-1851,) MR. TURNER is a quiet film that takes much patience to watch, although I am fine with that. The film is gorgeously designed with excellent scenery and costumes as you might expect from a period drama like this, along with a beautifully done score and cinematography. Unfortunately the two places where it doesn't hit the mark as much are the script and performances. For a film written (and directed by) Mike Leigh, I was disappointed by the script and how basic it was. While the vocabulary and expressions were vivid and helped enhance some of the lines, it still felt that the emotions and actions fated to the characters by the script were rather basic and made some of the characters far less sophisticated than the director probably intended them to be. And Timothy Spall's performance as J.M.W. Turner was good (certainly not a bad performance by any means,) although I felt like he didn't do or accomplish anything much during the film or was that developed as a character which was due to the script, which was (unfortunately) the only slightly asinine part of the film. Still, it's very well done from technical and creative standpoints, and this technical creativity makes it feels like a special type of period piece, especially in the first act, so it's overall a good film, although maybe not quite as great as you might have expected. Still, I liked it overall and would give it a very solid 7.5/10.

Beautiful images but at the end of the movie I wondered why Mike Leigh made it. I did not feel I got to know Turner at all. I learned nothing about what made Turner paint the way he did, what inspired him, or where his genius came from.

I never felt that I could see past Mr. Spall into the character he was portraying. I was watching a good actor act instead of being drawn into the character of Turner. His performance is flat and unchanging from scene to scene, except for one scene where he inexplicably breaks down for some reason that is never explained. The man seemed completely without any passion.

The rest of the performances reminded me of the Alastair Sims version of The Christmas Carol. Over the top "Victorian" but not unpleasant.

The movie is beautiful but the colourist should have received a bigger credit. He did a lot of the work to achieve the look of the film. Hopefully if the photographer wins any awards he will mention him.

I gave it a 7 because it is very well made, but I left the theatre disappointed at the emptiness of it.

I don't know how anyone sat through all two and a half hours of this at one go in the theater. It took me four sessions to get through it all.

It is a series of largely unconnected scenes, most very short. There is no arc. Turner finally dies, but you don't feel that you know much about him. Nor do you care.

I don't expect a feature film to be a documentary. Hamlet, after all, evidently tells us very little about the real Prince of Denmark of that name. But I do expect a feature film to develop its characters, make us come to understand them, and perhaps even care about them, or care about something. This movie did not do that for me at all. And that was very disappointing, as I really love Turner's paintings.

There are some beautiful, if very short, scenes of gorgeous English countryside, but nothing comes of them. There are lots of scenes that make no sense by themselves. The young Ruskin, for example, comes off as a pretentious fop, but if you don't know it from other sources you would never know from this movie that that young fop would become one of the most influential writers on art for the next century, both in England and in France. We see Constable, and Turner's addition to one of his canvases, but the movie gives us no idea who Constable is, whether he was any different from the many other painters we see in that scene, etc. Just a lot of names. If a movie is going to introduce historical figures, then it should in fact introduce them. It's not sufficient to just run them by us.

In short, I was very disappointed by this movie. A good editor might make something of it by cutting it down an hour and filming some transitions, but I don't know that it would be worth the effort.

I've been a fan of Mike Leigh's films for years. They have been funny, emotional and dramatic, sometimes all at the same time. In a recent interview he stated that this is the 20th film he has made without a script - and believe me it shows. It goes absolutely nowhere and tells you nothing about Turner that you don't already know. The critics seem to have been crawling up each other's trousers to praise this film. Yes, it's well acted and it's beautifully filmed = but that's it. There is NO STORY at all. I went with five other people (all art students) and we all found it incredibly boring. This is yet another example of professional critics getting it completely wrong. Don't be fooled by them. They've been wrong before. Avoid this film at all costs. It's beautiful by empty. It's the Emperor's New Clothes.