Mr. Turner

It's had rave reviews and I can'r wait to see it [although I didn't like Mike Leighs Last film]. Timothy Spall can do no wrong for me.

My friend went to see it and said it was very long with not much plot - she said she was bored - I wouldn't call her an art lover though. As it is long I might wait for it on Box office then I can split it up into sections.

teetime we do that, wait for it to come on telly (free) and then watch it with an "interval" - remember those? or even finish watching it on another day. We did that with "All is Lost", the recent Robert Redford film where it was just him and the ocean.

However! There is an informal rule in this house that we don't pay per view - in other words if it doesn't come free on the movie channels then we have lucked out but being a British film I feel pretty sure it will pop up somewhere in due course ...!

I saw it the other day and would agree about the lack of plot. It works as a vehicle for Timothy Spall to display his talent though, he gave a fine performance.

I thought it was very interesting about Turner the man and very well acted by all the cast but disappointing in terms of finding out about his particular genius. Two brilliant death-bed scenes. Rather surprised Ruskin was presented as a pretentious half-wit.

Yes, the deathbed scenes! They knew how to do the 'last words' in those days didn't they.

I think it's a film that needs to be seen 'big'. Grannyknot; what did you think to All Is Lost; we thought it was dire. A sailing friend of ours said it was awful as well.

tegan I love films where the ocean plays a big role, find them very soothing, but I've seen better ones that All is Lost. We put it under the "Why did I waste 2 hours of my precious life on that" list. And the ending was ridiculous, I looked up what the meaning of it all was, and it was supposed to be left open to the interpretation of the viewer, all philosophical and spiritual like. Pah. (Give my Life of Pi any day!)

I've had some disappointments lately with films I've wanted to see. We waited to see "Nebraska" because we are both fond of Bruce Dern and the female actress in it got the Oscar for Supporting Actress at 80 something. Well after the first half hour I couldn't stomach the way the main character treated his adult sons so we didn't wait around to see whether he redeemed himself, and hit the "off" switch.

Nebraska was my favourite film of last year; I beg you to give it another go. It made me laugh and cry in equal measures. When I saw the stupid things Robert Redford did in All Is Lost I phoned my boating friend and asked her what she and her friends thought of it, and she said they all agreed that an experienced seaman wouldn't do things in that way. The whole cinema breathed a sigh when it ended; not of relief that he'd survived but relief that out torture was at an end. It had such rave reviews as well .Meeks Cuttoff was even worse and, as for The Headless Woman . Uncle Boonmee was the worst though, by far.

Just been to see Mr Turner. Beautifully filmed but I was bored out of my head . Even 2 hours would have been too long but 2 1/2 was far too much.

Okay tegan I'll give Nebraska another chance . But definitely will avoid Mr. T.!

My son said he thought I would find Mr Turner too slow so he recommended The Imitation Game all about cracking the Enigma Code in the war. It was fabulous and Benedict Cumberbatch top class.

That has had dire reviews but I'm going to ignore them because it looks really good. I sometimes think that professional film reviewers are scared to admit that they find a film pretentious and boring.

I loved the sheer beauty and scale of Mr Turner. It was bipgrsphival so ehy would it need a plot? The characters depicted were fantastc (Ruskin was a verystrange man- it is said that the sight of his wife Effie 's pubic hair on their wedding night so shocked and revolted him he was unable to consummate the marriage!). There were lots of cameo portraits and lots of laughs as well as the most stunning camera work I have seen since Doctor Zhivago!

I agree that the camera work was stunning but I didn't come away from it feeling that I understood what drove him to paint the way that he did any more than I knew beforehand. Having wikipedia'd him I don't think it gave a very accurate depiction of his private life either. Just very puzzled by it . And his housekeeper kept making me think of Mrs Overall.

We were really looking forward to this movie but the adjective we both used to describe it was 'tedious'. We learnt nothing about the artist and Timothy Spall seemed to grunt his way through the two and a half hours. Several minor characters seemed to be caricatures lifted from Dickens. It was all beautifully done but a complete waste of time on the part of the film crew and ourselves.

I loved the film, although not quite what I expected.Mr Turner was portrayed as quite an unattractive man, to use his own words (like a gargoyle) Yet in his early portrait of himself as a young man he looked reasonably handsome. The film was long but I was so enthralled, that I wasnt forever glancing at my watch.

I also felt that the sex scene with his housekeeper was horrible and I'd hate to think of a 12 year old watching it. Oh dear; am I being particularly grouchy at the moment ?

I saw it the other night and enjoyed it. It didn't seem like 2.5 hours!
I didn't enjoy watching the sex scene, but it was essential to give an accurate portrayal of the relationship between the housekeeper and Turner.

I saw this film last week I really loved it. I know it has divided opinion friends of ours didn't like it all. Mike Leigh's films can be ponderous at times, but sometimes, for me anyway, that adds to their overall quirkiness. I also loved Another Year.

I'm not sure the Americans could produce such a work, I like the way Mike Leigh draws from a pool of acting talent that aren't always known for their good looks. In the case of Mr Turner it gave a more authentic feel about that period.

Not knowing that much about Turner I have Googled him since seeing the film and it does seem that a lot of the events as depicted by Mike Leigh were accurate. I also had no idea of the staggering body of work he produced in his lifetime some 20,000 paintings I believe.

I think I would enjoy watching this film again in a couple of years time when it pops up on television.

Someone I spoke to a couple of days ago said two of her friends went to see it and walked out halfway through. They'd wanted to leave sooner but felt it would have been a bit rude to do so. I did know quite a lot about Turner before I saw the film and just felt it should have given me an even greater insight into his character. I don't think it explained his relationship with his daughters and their mother at all [I may have missed something] and the relationship with his housekeeper could have been done in a slightly more subtle way. It's taken me several days to understand the humour in the comment 'it's a buoy' at the Academy Exhibition [that was funny in retrospect]. I'd like to see someone else to re edit the film in a more coherent way with more narrative. It's turning into a very Marmite film, isn't it!

Went to see it last night. Visually stunning and the acting was superb but I could not wait for it to end - it was SOOO boring- just no point in it- no story at all.

I felt the film and the subject 'deserved' more [which is possibly why I can't seem to let it go]. It was like watching a film adaptation of a Dickens book that had lots of characters but no plot. I do watch and enjoy films with no narrative and no plot [eg Holy Motors] but I felt this one needed more structure.

philly that's what I was told. My friend didn't make it to the end. It put me off seeing it.