Whenever I see a film my reaction towards is normally instant; I know when I’ve seen a masterpiece and I know when I want to have rant about Michael Bay. However, every now and again, a film comes around that I can’t quite figure out. Generally it’s smaller things such as whether a performance worked or whether a particular scene was necessary, however sometimes I just can’t decide whether I’ve seen a masterpiece or just another film. Mr. Turner, Mike Leigh’s 19th century based biopic of legendary artist J.M.W Turner, is for me one of those films.

Mr. Turner isn’t without its obvious pleasures. Not mentioning Timothy Spall’s majestic performance would be a sin; he commands the screen with such ease. His 19th-century dialogue is pristine, not to mention his pronunciation of a simple “grr”. Never have I seen a performance where a sharp grunt from a character can convey so much emotion at the same time; surely a BAFTA is on its way to him. Whether the Americans will be as awestruck as us Brits when it comes to Spall’s character acting waits to be seen, but Oscar or no Oscar, it’s still a breath-taking performance.

As in many Mike Leigh films, although his main actor dominates, Spall is surrounded by a cast of wonderful actors in supporting roles that elevate not only his performance but the film as a whole. Dorothy Atkinson gives a heart-breaking performance as Turner’s tender and shy housekeeper and Marion Bailey is pitch perfect as an optimistic widowed landlady with whom Turner forms an emotional bond.

The aesthetics of the film are also extremely impressive, especially Dike Pope’s wonderful cinematography, whose seamless blend of messy rooms filled with easels, paints and brushes with stunning shots of countryside landscape reflect the realism and surrealism of Turner’s life and paintings.

My confusion lies more with the direction of film. Mike Leigh is undoubtedly one of the best directors around: his last three films (Vera Drake, Happy-Go-Lucky and Another Year) are veritable masterpieces and he crafts the 19th century world of Turner perfectly. Despite this, Mr. Turner doesn’t feel as instantly a classic as some of his other work. The film is close to two-and-a-half hours long and is a slow burner, which has probably contributed to this feeling,

However, as I left the cinema and contemplated the film more, I started to realise that perhaps I enjoyed the film more than when I watching it in the cinema. Suddenly scenes which seemed overlong and unnecessary have started to form meaning, and little subtleties that I hadn’t noticed before have suddenly become clear.

Perhaps in a week or if I ever get to see the film again, my reservations on its length and pace will stay the same, or perhaps they’ll vanish and I’ll realise the film is a five star masterpiece. Maybe like Turner’s paintings, the film has to be seen multiple times, from different angles and in different contexts. Nonetheless, on first viewing, Mr. Turner is an impressive watch.