A day after watching the movie, I am still not certain about the way I feel about it, hence the 5/10. Mr Turner is a beautiful film to look at: the cinematography, the framing of the images, the colours, the are all extremely well done. I was only let down by the cardboard houses and harbour at Margate, that was like looking at a cheap operadécor. Everything actually filmed on location looks marvellous and romantic. The atmosphere in the Victorian Houses and at the Academy are also captured very well.I don't know if it was intentionally meant by the director/producer, but never could I sympathize with the Turner character. He's rude, sometimes a pervert, but mostly grumpy and boorish. If those were indeed the main characteristics of Turner, then Spall did a great job. However, it was very hard to unsee Spall's Peter Pettigrew (Harry Potter) and I find he even uses some of the same eccentric actingtrics in this movie. He huffs, puffs and groans throughout the movie, I found it very tiresome. Neither could I see the attraction Mrs Booth had to have to this grumpy old man. There were too few scenes in the movie to justify their apparently loving relationship.But Turner is a movie about a painter! I was so disappointed that only 10% of the time you can actually see him paint. I read Spall took art classes for 2 years, but that was waste of time and money, because you can hardly see hem hold a brush, let alone actually paint. The movie never reveals his reasons for painting, his convictions nor his passions. I don't understand his relationship with Haydon, Constanble nor the other painters, but he loves the camaraderie of the Academy. He seems to have contempt for the paintings of the pre-rafaellites, but it was a fact that he was a fan of their work. I was mostly disappointed by his mocking of John Ruskin - in a scene at Ruskin's house with his parents - which seemed to me totally disrespectful towards the Ruskins, who have just bought one of his paintings.The movie is a sequential series of fragments. Some of them seem out of place and unimportant. For me it made it hard to warm to it. It has not made me want to know more about Turner, which usually is a sign that the movie has not enough quality, despite the beautiful cinematography.

Well Mr. Leigh, I admire your work and Imma let you finish but this movie sucks on many levels. I am not in the position to judge the quality of British painting but when it comes to comparing it with other European countries' painting ecoles, say "Dutch Masters" or Italian Renaissance painters or many many famous French painters, British painting is definitely not in the hall of fame of European art.That is why I consider making a biopic of a British painter as a slight attempt to elevate British painting to a more visible and honorable degree by the means of cinema. An effort to make a place for it in the minds. However, Mr. Turner's neither art nor character and nor his life is interesting, on the contrary, almost everything is rather dull.This kind of movies mostly receive admiration for its contribution to imagining old times. How did people pass their time when there was no TVs, no pastime instruments. When there was limited light in houses, what did people do at nights? How did they behave in an art society, in the Victorian age, what did they speak? I have to admit, Mr. Leigh must have some hardships in illustrating those moments and his artistry works in this level. But we have seen better of his talent previously. I believe he has the quality of Fellini while establishing his own gravitational atmosphere, especially in the context of actor direction.

I disagree with comments saying this was spoiled by the lack of a story or that it was somehow empty.Give me the truth every time instead of being spoonfed some convenient children's story book version of something. I loved these snapshots of the man and his process. It felt real and unembellished.I think formulaic storybook films should have had their day by now but people are so slavish to them that the money machine keeps churning them out and ramming them down our throats like so much grain down a foie gras goose's neck. Then people panic when there's not a story. We are not 5! Use your damned imagination, or take it at face value. Be disturbed or haunted by the lack of tidy bows and happy endings, by the open spaces, by the jagged edges. This is life, unlike children's stories.I liked the acting from the maid in particular, but Spall and some of the supporting cast were good too. Also liked the haunting score kicking in at poignant moments. Some lovely cinematography spliced in there too. Better than I thought from the reviews, but it's not a laughfest or a tidy story. Which is absolutely fine by me cos I've had my fill of those.

fragments from William Turner's life. as pieces of a puzzle. one by one recreating atmosphere, defining a man and his work, transforming the viewer in part of his paintings. all in wise manner. a splendid film for its basic sin - to not be a fresco, to not give an unitary image, to transform landscapes in paintings, to give a drawing who becomes, slowly, become a large portrait. a film who reminds lost flavors. and that fact does it great. Timothy Spall does more than a character but impose his talent to viewer in a seductive manner. and that is the high virtue of the film- to give a collections of pictures who suggest, who opens, who defines an existence who , step by step, is a kind of revelation about a period more than about a painter.