I saw this at a film festival recently. Don't bother. It's dull and absolutely uninteresting. The characters are poorly developed. There is no insight into what motivates any of them. It's basically just a series of events in Turner's life without telling any story about him.
The most interesting character in the film was the painter Haydon, but he's only in three scenes.
So what you are saying is that one and a half centuries later the attitude towards Turner and his work hasn't changed. Your perception of Turner in the film medium is no different to those who looked at Turner's work in the paint medium all those years ago. And if you are naively looking to understand what motivates an artist, any artist, then you are sure to be disappointed. I will channel J W Turner here and state that there is only one awful dullard here my good sir.
shareThe dullard is you: the pretentious pseudo-intellectual. I'm sure you think your insult was very clever. It wasn't.
If you'd seen the movie, you'd know that Turner was appreciated in his day. In the film, people called his works "masterpieces" and his peers respected him. Perhaps you fell asleep and missed that. I don't blame you. I nearly fell asleep a couple of times during this film.
This film is long, dull, and uneventful. I'm sorry you feel you have to pretend to like it in order to seem intelligent. The truth is, this emperor has no clothes.
Respond if you like, but I won't read it. I'll use the "Ignore User" feature. Your comments are not worth the effort.
By the way, the correct punctuation is "... looked at Turner's work ...". It's possessive. You need the apostrophe.
It is unfortunate that 'critics' revert to childish criticism of each others' efforts and opinions. Can't we just respect the fact that we have different passions and tastes? I might like coffee more than tea. You may prefer tea. Who is most correct?
share*gasp*
"Oooo, lookee, a Sneerfest I can jump in on!!!"
Hahahahaha the irony of you accusing pretence when you thought the only interesting character was Haydon...prat.
shareYou say you saw the film at a festival, but all your post is saying is that you are lying through your teeth.
I don't know how you could assume that. I saw it. It was dull. Of all the films at the festival, this was the only one the audience did not clap for.
shareWhich festival? It certainly wasn't the London Film Festival where it got thunderous applause.
imagine that, a film festival attended only by your fellow ignorant dullards. What are the odds?
~ Native Angeleno
You need to learn your application of 'dull and uneventful' regarding works of art that attempt to depict how works of art are accomplished is self-reflective. Not all films are meant to be as simpistically unchallenging and needy of fulfilling a child's concept of story-telling as you'd prefer. Try growing intellectually. Get out of your dull and uneventful rut or stick to flicks with lots of explosions and untaxing linear story lines. Some maturity in taste would help too.
~ Native Angeleno
DrBain has hit this movie right on the head. Perhaps if you are an afficianado of Turner, you may recognize some of the settings of his paintings in the scenes of the movie. I am not and did not. Failing that, it was difficult to know why many of the scenes were in the movie, why the director chose those particular events to include in a telling of Turner's life, and how they moved the movie forward in any way other than to finish the scene closer to the end of the movie. The set and wardrobe design were well done. I have to assume Turner was well known for his grunting and cold, self-serving demeanor since they were the highlights of Spall's portrayal. I'm not saying this movie isn't enjoyable for someone, but to enjoy it, you probably need to start with a reason to watch it other than it being another movie.
shareYou can't honestly think you can come in here with the same complaint every 12 year old gives to the world and not expect to get called on it.
If you want to make a statement, write a review. If you want to start a dialog, start a thread. You made a choice. You can't possibly have expected any different outcome. Did you think people would come flocking to cheer you for your brilliant insights? "Oh yes, it was so dull... so grateful someone finally said something!"
Please.
Movies are IQ tests; the IMDB boards are how people broadcast their score.
What other events would you have liked to see, so it wouldn't have been so uneventful? Robots, dinosaurs, or maybe Turner being blown clear by the Ostend explosion at the beginning?
sharewhat motivates an artist?
~I see a little silhouette of a man, Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango.
You just blew your 5 seconds of fame.
shareI just watched the trailer and it does seem like it could be just another typical period piece, but I'm still going to give it a chance because I do love Turner - especially 'Rain, Steam and Speed." I hope they did that painting justice.
~~~~~~
I like Rain, Steam and Speed also. It's in the film, but not much.
You see Turner watching a train. Later in the film, you see the painting briefly. Even later in the film, someone mentions it. That's about it.
Sort of a predictable response since there are no cinematically dramatic events in Turner's life and, contrary to usual filmmaking, none are invented. I think this was anticipated by having the young Ruskin claim that Claude was dull and boring, which is reminiscent of the younger film critics of today who judge everything by how trilling a film is, and carp that such-and-such a film is "overrated", to use the overused contemporary judgement.
shareHee hee... I love Ruskin (and this film) though not 100% sure of the film's portrayal of his as a brash precocious young man... still, the film did seem to pretty accurate. In a world where dull films like Avatar and Transformers rake in millions, reflective and beautifully filmed and acted movies like this are a real Oasis.
shareI was really excited to see it and really, really didn't like it! It is boring and long and ultimately has little-to-nothing to say, so what's the point. The film didn't show much of Turner's art and had nothing really to say itself about Turner as an artist. It is a grotesque film and portrays Turner as basically a grotesque being, not too far from an animal... which is fine if it had some point with it. I wasn't sure if it was trying to make some facile point such as "great art can come from the grotesque (and boring)?" but if so that's no deep message. I felt very little at all during the film (except boredom.) The only character who made me feel even a tiny bit was Turner's housekeeper who was a tiny bit touching. It is just not well told and the worst thing is that the film has nothing to say. In the end I was even wondering whether the film was attempting to say something about Turner or Mike Leigh?!?! But it said so little it doesn't matter.
I mean it is acted well, but it isn't a good story and worse than it dragging and so little happening in that long run-time is the fact that it has no point and it neglects Turner's art - you know: if you're going to make a film about an artist, it should express the emotion of the art itself, surely??? I felt as though if you didn't know any of Turner's art, you would gain nothing in that respect from the film and then the film would be even more meaningless. A documentary on Turner has way more emotion in it than does this (three-times-as-long!) film!! I don't know how it is even possible when Mike Leigh can make such moving, powerful films!!?!?! So odd!!
Oh, there was one thing I really liked about the film: the score which I found strange and beautiful and reminiscent of a Turner painting. Sadly there wasn't that much music in the film which is understandable as the nature of the music would be distracting if overused. Though I wouldn't have minded being distracted since it was so dull. I'd have preferred to have watched 2.5 hours of Turner paintings accompanied by the score than the film... Sadly, because I was really looking forward to seeing it!
Yeah I must admit it was slightly disappointing. The visuals were beautifully shot for sure, the whole film felt like looking at a painting.
But it just felt like a looking glass into the period and how people were with each other, more like a general history lesson than a real insight into what made Mr Turner the man he is.
Which is charming in of itself but, carried through a lengthy movie in the cinema I must confess I did feel time very slowly passing.
The whole thing had a very depressive feel too, including the music, focusing a lot on the ill health and having to go through all the coughing and weezing. Of course I'm not expecting some Disney happy movie, lol. But still it seemed to linger just too much, maybe its more just a reflection of Mike Leighs state of mind and health at this time in his own life.
That's kind of what I was afraid of. I love Turner, and would love to see a film that really gets into his motivations as an artist, but this type of film often does tend to be more of a generic history lesson.
I will watch it anyway as soon as I get the chance, though.
~The painter should not paint merely what he sees in front of him but also what he sees within him.
You guys are lucky to be able to see it at all. Missed as opportunity in London in July to see this movie at a preview, now note that the release date in Australia in 22 Jan 2015. Very poor, we are almost last on the list. Even Finland and Slovenia get the movie before us. All I can do now is look forward to it - always enjoy Timothy Spaull's work and Mike Nichols as well.
shareWell, I'm in the US so I've got a bit of a wait too, though not as long as yours.
~The painter should not paint merely what he sees in front of him but also what he sees within him.
It will be worth the wait. Mr. Turner is a magnificent film. Rich in character, with a complex central character who is compelling in his brilliance, amusingly forthright and wholly believable in Timothy Spall's hands. Mike Leigh's direction is first-rate and his framing and composition is matched by Dick Pope's exquisite cinematography. A real joy of a movie.
NOW TARZAN MAKE WAR!
I agree with you, JohnnyWeissmuller, I really enjoyed every aspect of the film. Timothy Spall created a comical yet fully-rounded depiction of Turner, both the man and the artist. It was a meandering film, but I was always engaged and interested in Turner's life. I particularly loved his touching relationship with his dad. Throughout the film, I laughed and felt moved in equal measure.
shareI think in part the point was exactly that it was a cinematic recreation of his paintings, that's who he was. He was immersed in his painting, there was little else to him, an eccentric who was a Marmite character, unpleasant and abusive yet capable of being loved and loving.
sharePerfect use of the term "Marmite" - linguistically and contextually. Kudos, Mr. Spencer.
shareThat's how I see it, nice analysis
shareI was really excited to see it and really, really didn't like it!
What I liked about the movie was its cinematography, but that's it.
I honestly didn't feel like Turner was portraied as being grotesque. I saw an incredibly repressed man that tried to compartmentalise his life, and had very deep feelings which he couldn't express all that well. He certainly wasn't likeable in every scene, but I found his portrayal very touching.
shareI honestly didn't feel like Turner was portraied as being grotesque.
You are right. The film lacked any character development or a story. I watched it awaiting something to happen, yet it did not.
I saw it last week, and loved it. True it was a bit too long, and dragged a little towards the end. However, the performances were wonderful, the script sounded genuinely nineteenth century, and it was random, funny and tragic. In a strange way it reminded me of Master and Commander, a film that left me feeling I'd been to the eighteenth century for a couple of hours. In both films the characters looked real, people you could meet on the street, not actors. It was just life, and life doesn't really have a plot.
shareI didn't think it was dull and awful. Seems to me that the original comment was from somebody with an ax to grind; someone who didn't pass his or her audition to get in to the movie. I think the film showed the subject, showed the artist looking at it and showed the artist both painting it and the result. It showed what kind of a man he was, what gave him is impetus and the result - the painting. It showed that he didn't do it for monetary gain and showed that the pseudo intellectuals didn't appreciate what he was doing and other people devoid of talent were making fun of him on the stage because they thought that people like Queen Victoria might have had a valid opinion. What do you mean dull and awful and nothing happened - what did want? A car chase?
shareI wuz waitin 4 turner 2 get in2 his iron man suit
Werd 2 ur mudda, bruddafckka
A masterpiece, glorious visuals, exactly the type of film I expected , Time Travel to another age. But what did the OP expect from a film about an artist? But I don't care what the OP thinks if I was the only person who liked it in the world I'd still be happy. Thanks Mike Leigh!!!
shareMy friend just spent 20 minutes ranting about how this was the most disgusting movie about the most disgusting man of the 19th century. She saw it yesterday at The Academy and she's an Oscar voter! She says there was very little applause and the other Academy members virtually ran out of the theatre when it was over.
shareWho cares what the Academy thinks? American movie companies buy those nominations and awards. It took them until Amour to give Michael Haneke a recognition.
- I'm the Pied Piper of cool!
i found it a bit long but interesting.before this i had no knoweledge or interest in turner or his paintings! after i found it had given me an insight into the man (faults and all)not the most likeable guy,but is art spoke for him.
it was atmospheric with the music,and the nod to coming advance in steam,cameras etc.i thought there was probably more i could have gleamed from this artists life which did`nt get portrade in fim. sorry spellings real bad!!!
Crash won best pic...nuff sed.
Werd 2 ur mudda, bruddafckka
I agree. The acting was superb (especially Spall), the lighting and cinematography beautiful, the mood authentic. The 'lack of plot' gave the film an appropriate impressionistic flavour. I had no problem understanding the dialogue (maybe because I'm English). The OP (American?) probably prefers the usual Hollywood fare, car-chases, guns blazing, larger than life characters etc.
A masterpiece of British film making IMO.
Blowin the changes!
That's what she said.
shareI'll second that. This film makes cat videos on Youtube tantalizing!
share