If I could start every day with a coffee and 10 minutes of somebody telling me why they love a particular piece of art it would be a very good day.

Fascinating documentary - ok, not fast-moving as some might with but it is a truly wonderful insight into the knowledge and workings of all concerned.

It's about as close to actually going to a museum as you're going to get via a camera lens. And just like a visit to a museum, some parts of the tour drag on FOREVER!

This is how all fly-on-the-wall documentaries should be. No narration, no subtitles, just observation.

Sure, it's really long. But the fly-on-the-wall perspective is also really fascinating, as you observe all the various goings-on behind and in front of the scenes. My personal favourites are the restoration portions. The guides explaining the art sometimes feel tedious and over-analytical. But the restorations - now, those are fantastically intriguing.

extremely slow, boring after 30 minutes

I love museums and art, but this movie is made for people that are the same age as the director - that is 85. Ok let's say 50 to 100. You had a chance to make a movie that will attract the youth to the Gallery and to see and understand real art. I think most of the young people watching this film will walk away and go back to pop culture. You lost a chance National Gallery.

Much much too long. No real narrative, repetitious, incomplete scenes, no explanation of who we are watching. There's a partial budget meeting, multiple scenes of someone explaining a painting to some sort of crowd, sometimes children-but usually on the conclusion of the talk, a man going up on a cherry picker to adjust a light and an hour later a partial scene explaining why he is doing that. There is never enough of any thing developed to the point of actually understanding what and why something is portrayed. On the positive side, the art historian was excellent and should have had more screen time, the art was beautiful and familiar and the faces of the people who cam to the gallery were wonderful.

For those who enjoy the experience of visiting art museums, National Gallery' is a must-see. The brilliant objectivist documentarian Frederick Wiseman captures the iconic British museum from every side imaginable. Over the course of three hours, he offers a grand glimpse of the museum's collection and temporary exhibits as others look or discuss them, from art historians to tour guides. Fixed history and interpretation are celebrated in both Wiseman's camera and the loosely strung scenes of people in the exhibition halls. The movie cuts to various perspectives of the museum, from details of paintings to entire galleries, as people gaze at works. But Wiseman also captures the people operating the museums during PR and budget meetings and, most intriguingly, at work restoring paintings. No one looks at the camera to explain their work and Wiseman never even uses superimposed title cards, yet you will come away enlightened.

Rip off, of a film. Spent £7 to go and see it, when entry to the National Gallery is free. A documentary for people who are too lazy to walk.

Fascinating film on all aspects of the National Gallery. From guided viewings to paintings, restoration master-class to marketing meetings of the management team, it gives a great overview of the workings and all that is involved in the National Gallery.

Frederick Wiseman's new documentary NATIONAL GALLERY runs three hours; three hours of dissecting and analyzing the workings of one of the world's great Museums - the National Gallery in London England. Probing paintings' meaning and content; structure and design; the decisions involved in the way venerated and treasured works of art are preserved, restored, cleaned, lit and hung. We also are privy to the voices of the docents, curators, and staff talking about specific artworks connecting their audiences to the aesthetics, beauty, history, and science of conservation; the various pathways a painting takes from its original creation; its entry into various collections, and finally to its safe-keeping for posterity in the National Gallery Museum. We even listen to Nicholas Penny, the rumpled-haired Museum Director in a lecture taking a stab at Poussin - admitting that he is not sure if he likes the work, but is always intrigued by it. Questions of elitism and exclusivity vs.accessibility and egalitarianism in light of budgetary considerations are discussed at meetings; there are lots of meetings. The film might have edited out some of the discussions - but I felt that the prosaic, the boring, the everyday-ness was worth observing. The running of a museum is not always glamourous. The decisions that establishments have to make in order to grip the public's interest - what lengths do they go to attract visitors, and at what price to their institution? Wiseman just lets his camera roll; he never uses "voice overs". His working method and vitality at age 84 is unchanged - not intrusive - the filmmaker is always invisible - interviews are conducted by others. Frederick Wiseman lets us be the proverbial "fly on the wall" in a space that ordinarily would be bug-proof. I loved watching one of the restorers discussing the cleaning of Velasquez' Christ in The House of Martha and Mary and passionately ponder the dilemma - do we over-strip the varnish used 100's of years ago and thereby brighten and change the artists' original intent? Ethical problems and compromises come into question. An in-house construction of a triptychs' impressive frame delicately carved by the crafts-men and women associated with the Museum, and the lighting of the finished piece held me spellbound, as did the issue of a cast shadow obscuring the top 1/4 of the painting once the work was installed. We also pay heed to restorers scraping away tiny slivers of paint with scalpels, Q-tips, eye-droppers, etc. and then put the minuscule paint shavings on a slide tray to be placed under a microscope to be scrutinized - to be thoroughly examined yielding a plethora of information; new scientific techniques today make this kind of investigation possible. We mark the fragility of time's passing on art realizing that there are effects that you have to live with, and guard against, but ultimately methodical and deductive technical intervention will be called upon to "save" the work from aging and deterioration. The camera also takes us outside the Museum with aerial views of Trafalgar Square lit by the grays of daylight to the shimmering of the early darkness -focusing on the diverse community waiting patiently in the cold to to see the Da Vinci exhibition "Painter at the Court of Milan" (2012.) We are never far away from the human response to art - the intensity of the onlooker's gaze, the curiosity, confusion, delight, horror and interior peace that art can inculcate. Other blockbusters such as "Turner Inspired by the light of Claude" and "Metamorphosis: Titian 2012" are exhibitions that we are fortunate to attend and hear curators/docents of varying sizes, ages and accents advocating for art's fascination and magnetism; confronting us with their disparate styles - some humorous, others psychoanalytical - all informative. Each artwork has a presence with an individual history and personal narrative imprinted on its essence - like life itself this movie is thrilling, enigmatic, complex and a singular jewel.

In-depth behind-the-scenes view of London's star Museum. The film starts in a gallery and slowly we follow the filmmaker through the museum watching the staff as they discuss their performance and the attendees as they look at art. We see art preservation and learn about the wide range of skills it takes to care for and display art. I have spent a lot of time in museums (including this one) and know a lot about business and because of this I found the film meandering and slow. I quite enjoyed watching the docents share their love of art and the cleverness of the staff as they discuss their craft. The film wanders around for 3 hours and eventually fades out as it began in a gallery of paintings.

This movie who's intent seems to be to make art accessible to more people goes on to produce a movie 3 hours long with pretentious docents, curators, art restorers and board members that could say their opinions in far fewer words and simply to make it accessible to the mass audience and not the snooty 1% that contributes to the annual capital funds of the institutions but doesn't care about the art or care to interpret it. They care about the cocktail parties and being seen. The filmmaker needs to be honest and stay true to being accessible to the masses or art will never have a chance against sports!

I am Down open going to see this brand New Documentary movie?!!!