merelyaninnuendo Savage GraceWhen there is an unusual plot or indigestible track like this, it becomes very essential for the feature to be character driven to justify the nature of it which fails on all levels in here. Not only is Tom Kalin, a weak link in this project but also the writer Howard A. Rodman whose adaptation is too thin to possess any logical reasoning. Whilst on the other side, performance is what factors and favors in as Julianne Moore and Eddie Redmayne both are in their A game. Savage Grace fails to deliver in any level due to lack of proper and experienced supervising of the makers and also for it never had enough material in the first place.

Bofsensai 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!

suite92 The picture was made by adapting a biography about the death of Barbara Baekeland. Barbara rose into wealth and social status by marrying Brooks Baekeland, the heir to the Bakelite plastics fortune. The period under consideration is circa 1946, and the birth of Tony, to 1972 and the death of Barbara. The film is about stormy relationships: Tony and Barbara, Barbara and Brooks, Barbara and whomever she was intimate with.The action of the film comes in islands. The first island is around 1946 when Tony was born. We get to know Barbara and Brooks: she is skilled at maintaining and growing social networks in the upper class; he is an accomplished explorer, adventurer, and linguist. The next island is in 1959 in Spain. Tony is 13, has some skill in languages, and enjoys long, detailed conversations with Barbara. Barbara continues to spend time and energy on affairs. The parents find out that Tony has gay leanings. In 1967, Tony is tall, skinny, skilled at the guitar. He and his father talk a bit more clearly than usual, the main subject being Barbara and women in general. Soon he meets Blanca, and not long thereafter spends a night with her. Barbara tells her later that she thought he was delivering Blanca rather like a cat delivers a bird to its owner.In 1968, Brooks and Blanca decide to go somewhere together. Barbara catches up with them, and makes a very public scene. Tony and Jake get 'caught' by Barbara when she gets back from the airport. About this time, Sam enters the movie as a 'walker,' a homosexual man who escorts a married woman while her husband is away. How could this get more volatile?The setup for a bad ending is well established. As time goes forward to 1972 in London, the family dynamics get even worse. Just how do we get to the sad conclusion?----Scores-----Cinematography: 10/10 Beautifully shot: interiors, exteriors, day, or night.Sound: 9/10 Very few problems. The background music might have been more effective.Acting: 7/10 I liked Stephen Dillane, Eddie Redmayne, and Hugh Dancy. I did not care so much for Elena Anaya, Unax Ugalde, or Julianne Moore (yes, she's considered an untouchable tin god, but I think other actresses could have done as well or better here).Screenplay: 8/10 I could have used more exposition.

merylmatt The idle rich are boring, which is why the movie is paced so slowly. The subject matter, based on truth is shocking because it is real and sick. You can see where this is going early on, but somehow, it's like a car accident. You don't want to watch but you do? Those of us who don't have money would like to think money cures problems, but as this material shows, if you're sick, you're sick. I thought the actors did a good job portraying their characters. When these things happen to ordinary people, they're statistics. When they happen to rich people, they become the material for books and movies.Very dark subject matter, played out very frankly, which makes this all the more disturbing.