Strictly average movie

Sadly Over-hyped

just watch it!

Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Exactly what the scriptwriters and director thought they were producing is beyond me. As others have so rightly said this is a series of disjointed scenes, many that have no end or point. The Cinematography is superb and the acting is of a high standard but all of this is wasted on this pointless film. You learn little if anything about Turner. He comes across as an odd man possessed by one type of painting who is also a bit of a pervert. His relationship with his maid and one scene with a prostitute show him to be very odd indeed. But that is all we ever learn about the man. There is no story and although I watched this to the end, in the vain hope something would start to make sense, which it didn't, I was left wondering why this got so much critical acclaim. I can only assume that critics are not like the rest of us and like to see things that are not there to make themselves seem better than the rest of us.

MR. TURNER is Mike Leigh's biopic of the famous Victorian painter, with Timothy Spall in the title role. It's a lengthy and slightly disappointing movie, mainly because it's quite good but not excellent, as I'd heard. People make out this film to be some kind of masterpiece, and while it does feel authentic and interesting, it fails to grip like other biopics. It's overlong and meandering in places, and as a director Leigh is interested in minute detail rather than the bigger picture.Put it like this: I watched the James Mason film THE DESERT FOX the day before, and as a biopic of the Nazi commander Rommel that was head and shoulders above this film. It had heart, soul, and drama, and MR. TURNER struggles with all of those. What this film does have is plenty of authenticity, bringing the 19th century to colourful and vivid life, and a surprising amount of humour that works. Spall is fine in the title role, but you get the impression that this Turner is a caricature rather than a fully-fledged and fully-rounded fellow. He has no character development and remains simply a classic British eccentric. Compare this to something like CREATION, which really attempted to get into the nitty gritty of Darwin's life and what made him tick, and MR. TURNER suffers by comparison.

This biopic of 19th century painter J. M. W. Turner takes an episodic approach to its subject. We meet Turner late in life, when he is successful, financially secure, happily living with his father and respected by his peers. The film refuses to define an essential character trait, or set up any kind of redemptive arc. This eschewing of tired Hollywood script tropes is admirable in itself, except that it offers up very little to replace it. Turner is contradictory in his affections; he provides generous financial support to a fellow artist and gives sage advice freely. And yet he fails to acknowledge his own daughters, declaring himself childless even in a conversation on the trials of burying one's own offspring. He seems to come alive most with his common law wife, while treating his devoted housekeeper abominably. No underlying cause for such behaviour is presented, we are merely privy to these facts as the film ponderously ticks off a check-box of known character traits. The massive redeeming feature for this film is Dick Pope's cinematography, rightfully celebrated in numerous reviews. Turner's art was cinematic before the adjective existed, and Pope exploits that to its full extent, so that the frame itself at various moments takes on a Turneresque hew. The film favours image over plot, and poetic moments over narrative cohesion, which will delight a certain niche audience. Leigh queasily refers to himself in the third person on the DVD extras, saying Turner was a "perfect subject for a Mike Leigh film." That apparently means coaxing a slightly vaudeville performance from Spall, which along with the lack of narrative drive, renders this over-long film rather boring. Lots for budding cinematographers to enjoy, but precious little for the rest of us.

Another reviewer of this title claims that the problem with this film is that there is no plot. I don't agree. Do our lives have plots? Do the lives of famous people and artists have plots? Did Glen Miller really spend the majority of his life seeking a sound? I may be wrong but it seems to me that what Mike Leigh has done here is exactly what the complainer says he has, namely assembled a series of realistic scenes from Turner's life and let the audience decide what is the plot, if there is indeed one. My thoughts were immediately what is this film saying about the motivation of an uncouth man to create paintings constantly? Did he sense in the late 18th century and early 19th century that art wasn't just a case of seeking the approbation of his contemporaries? He clearly had an eye on his contemporaries, with the story of the red spot on his painting that referred to Constable's work hung next to his. His charity towards Hayden. He clearly enjoyed the camaraderie of his fellow academicians but what did he really think about their work? Then there was his attitude to women. His ex partner, who bore him two sons, his housekeeper who he used without any care, the attitude to the young prostitute and finally his obvious affection for Mrs Booth. All told as a film it was never going to be a modern thriller, but was it as cerebral as it would like to be? Yes I think it was. I'd be interested to see if others saw different narratives in this wonderfully shot and marvellously researched film?