Mr Turner
Can't seem to find a thread for this (maybe I'm doing the wrong thing?)
What a fantastically well filmed movie this is. Timothy Spall is just magnificent as well. Cinematography is sublime and the script is witty and well-researched. Surely a contender for BAFTA Best Film next year?
Anyone else agree?
What a fantastically well filmed movie this is. Timothy Spall is just magnificent as well. Cinematography is sublime and the script is witty and well-researched. Surely a contender for BAFTA Best Film next year?
Anyone else agree?
0
Comments
Performances across the board were good but also quite strange as a lot of the time they were done in the style of a stage production as if the cast were trying to ensure their voices were (unnecessarily) being carried to the very back of a theatre.
The central character wasn't particularly likeable or interesting so ultimately this was at best an average biographical drama that barely did enough to get a 6/10 from me...
I think you rather missed the point. This is a very untypical biopic. Usually the accent is on the 'pic' rather than the 'bio' in that they tend to portray the real life central character as an all round nice guy (or gal) who just happens to be mega-talented. The problem with geniuses is that they are so focused on what they are good at that they frequently do not relate well to other people. By ordinary people's standards, they are often not likeable at all. They have to be judged by their own standards.
The other deviation from the traditional biopic is that, whereas the others tend to rewrite the person's true life story as a heavily fictionalised account, giving it some sort of dramatic cohesion, 'Mr. Turner' is historically accurate. It is simply a depiction of events from the second half of the artist's life, so it doesn't have a plot, as such. They didn't magnify their voices like a stage actor would, but they did speak in nineteenth century idioms, which gives the dialogue an entirely authentic Dickensian feel. They spoke clearly - a refreshing change from the mumblers and gabblers who so often infest our screens these days. The production values are stunning. It was made by Film Four, so the budget can't have been much, but you would never guess it by watching the film. Best of all is Timothy Spall's performance. He shows the artist exactly as he was: gruff, selfish, uncouth, inarticulate, uncaring - and a genius.
I was surprised the film was two and a half hours long. It felt a lot shorter than Gone Girl, which really dragged for me.
Modern cinema seats are not really designed for long films though. Must remember never to sit in the VIP seats as they are very uncomfortable.
I'm glad that you (& others) enjoyed it but I would like to point out that just because someone didn't like a film that you did, it doesn't mean that they didn't 'get it'.
There isn't a single film out there that is universally loved, we all have different tastes & all have different sets of triggers that enable us to engage with what's occurring on screen (and in the case of this particular film, it's just unfortunate that it didn't contain nearly enough of mine)...
I agree with the first poster. I did understand what the purpose of the film, but I think it made for quite a dull narrative given the length. Friends that have also seen the film agreed with this perspective. Perhaps it might have made for an effective one hour drama.
I think that there is a reason why most mainstream films shape their narrative and restrict the focus to a few key events rather than the more rambling approach of this film. I went to see the film because of the trailer which foregrounds the superb photography. I would have welcomed more focus on the art and Turner's conflict with accepted taste of the period.
My friend nodded off briefly and I just managed to stay awake. They could easily have knocked 45 mins off the length of this. Some of the scenes just dragged on ....... Like the singing in the grand house.
We got that Turner was a randy old devil but he must have been desperate to have taken that old servant up the rear against the book case. I think they just put that bit in to break the tedium. Did she have psoriasis or eczema or a STD?
I'd only give this a 4/10.