Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

I wanted to give this movie an 8 but I couldn't. It's very good in terms of being an engaging film with good performances and a solid a story with a number of very complex personal relationships. There's a real sense of ennui as this very wealthy but very sad family tries to find some meaning from life. The problem is is that's not the truth of the Baekelands. There is virtually nothing to signal the extreme ending that is coming. I'm guessing the filmmakers were trying to capture the tone of the book instead of the reality of the dysfunctional and incredibly unstable Baekeland family.The true story had plenty of indications of how unstable the family was. The son, Anthony, was diagnosed early as having borderline schizophrenia. In the film he and his mother, Barbara, seem to have a more or less good relationship (not counting the incest, of course). In reality Tony fought with his mother often, threatened her and brandished a knife at her on more than one occasion. She had been warned by Tony's psychiatrist that he was capable of murder. Barbara also had a history of mental illness. The father, Brooks, was lacking in paternal instincts and was more interested in attending parties and traipsing around the world than dealing with his family's problems.The point I'm making is the real story is much more dynamic than the movie adaptation and it would have been a much more successful film if they had stuck to the truth. Overall it was an engaging film but a wasted opportunity. If it was more honest, the movie could've been really good.

I'm only adding this 'review' because - depending on what you expect of the art form of cinema - other than Julianne Moore's really impressive performance, which based on a larger than life real person, would be the ONLY reason to tolerate viewing this.Otherwise, although based on a true story (and personages), this film uses an event to precipitate the (true) tragic denouement that can only be purely fanciful, salacious supposition (by the screenwriter H. Rodman presumably) as there is and can be no possible verification that it ever occurred; by which it's the definition of gratuitous depiction, for which one could argue the filmmakers should be ashamed!True, it centres around both the Mother's (Juliane Moore's) and son's (Eddie Redmayne playing mostly troubled vacant look throughout) character's personal revelation / confessions (at least according to the writers of the book on her - Baekeland's - life, that this is taken from) - that they had an incestuous relationship - ostensibly to 'cure' him of homosexuality - but that's all. And which even in this latter aspect, in its 'other shocking' portrayal that son, homosexual lover and Mother had a menage a trios, is not only pure speculation but was one so resolutely refuted by the real life character portrayed (Hugh Dancy), that he had sued the production right up until his death that this - too - was not true = another pure salacious supposition again.So basically, it's a con on its audience: real people trumped up with unsubstantiated salaciousness: and yet, knowing how weird the whole family really were (that historical true tragic denouement) it could have been genuinely engrossing (rather than just gross!) because the Baekeland's were renowned for not only hosting (first hand account told) "risqué" (debauched!) soirees, as being social butterfly socialites, hobnobbed with the likes of Garbo, Dali, author Tennesee Williams, Welsh poet Dylan Thomas, various minor royalty - even booze barons (Dubonnet and Heineken) - but NONE of whom are referred to in this travesty of a film - except for brief references to (artist?) Duchamp when shown commiserating with his widow at his funeral.Even Tony's descent into first drug depravity is under-represented (played? - if at all really), and then subsequent clinical madness is then only lamely summed up in mere closing captions.Unless you love J. Moore performances and want to catch her portrayal here, this is not only waste, but a travesty con!

Brooks Baekeland (Stephen Dillane) is the heir to the Bakelite plastics from his grandfather. He does no work just like his father. He has a volatile marriage to Barbara (Julianne Moore). He is dissatisfied with their son Antony (Eddie Redmayne). As the family dysfunction increases, Barbara gets ever more closer to Antony leading to complicated sexual relationship along with Sam Green (Hugh Dancy).Julianne Moore and Eddie Redmayne deliver a couple of solid performances. It's filmed with a cold distant beauty. The movie is missing the intensity and the psychological thrills. The closing text describes some crazy plot developments after the movie ends. The first half could be compressed while the final text could be played out on the screen. This should be a character study of Antony rather than following Barbara.

Others have written some excellent reviews with which I agree so I don't feel the need to go on at length. When I started watching the movie, I was a little bored with it's meandering, talky style, but gradually got sucked into the story. Partly due to some excellent acting, (and may I mention young Barney Clark as the 12 year old Tony, perhaps slightly overshadowed by Eddie Redmayne, but who I thought brought a lot to the role.) As the tale unfolded, I enjoyed the scenery, the gentle pace and it struck me how unique it was and so refreshing after all the special effects, noise and mayhem of much from America. There was a lot missing from the plot, much left to one's imagination but despite that, I am glad I had the chance to see a flawed but enjoyable movie.