Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil

Ya know, when I first saw Kevin Spacey in Swimming with Sharks, I was impressed. Than in A time to kill. But now that I see him in this dump of a movie, I just don't know. With the talent they had in this movie, it could've been a whole lot better. I was really disappointed. Mr. Hipp

Having lived in Savannah in 1988 -1992, and knowing not only Jim but also Chablis, I was disappointed in the movie. That is an understatement, I walked out before the movie was over. John did a great job with the book but Clint really screwed up when he made the movie; first with the casting. John's role played by John Cusack is ridiculous. I only met John Berendt once but I certainly would not cast young and somewhat sexy John Cusack to play him. Tony Randall would have been a nice choice. I know people are enthralled with Kevin Spacey's role as Jim, but I was not impressed. Not only did they look nothing alike, Kevin played Jim as a much more sophisticated and elegant man than he actually was. Yes Jim had his money and the friends who accompany it, but he was more of a foul mouthed and overly loud man who lacked social graces, at least when he was in the company of other gay men. When I first met him in '88, I was new to town and had no idea who he was or what he had done. He introduced himself as a murderer that I must be familiar with because he was on the cover of some magazine at one time (this was years before "the book"). Then he spilled his drink on me with out even so much as an apology. To say the least, I stayed far away from him whenever I saw him out. Okay, so Kevin would not have known the real Jim Williams, but Clint could have done a little more research so that he could be portrayed realistically. Chablis did the best job of acting in the entire movie. That is sad to say because all she was doing was playing herself. At least Clint didn't miss it on casting that time. As far as another Savannah local playing himself, Jerry Spence should have been fired and someone who could deliver a line chosen. I still have no idea what he was saying in his few lines. Then there is the storyline. John's book told a fascinating story that made people want to go to Savannah. Clint's rendition of Savannah made it into a caricature of itself with a boring story and horrible acting. Skip the movie and read the book if you want a real taste of what Savannah was like during the 1980s.

Like many other fans of the novel, I decided to see 'Midnight' despite the unflattering reviews. After all, I reasoned, Kevin Spacey is a wonderful actor, and even a bad adaption of a wonderful novel might be tolerable. HOW BAD COULD IT BE?? I was wrong. Regardless of whether you're a fan of the book or a 'newcomer', this movie is sure to disappoint. The novel, which consists of a number of hilarious character sketches followed by a short mystery, has been mangled into a remarkably mundane mystery plot. The screenwriter also threw in a romantic subplot, presumably because the filmgoing public demands it (or perhaps because the director's daughter needed a role?). Finally, Savannah's grace, charm, and quirkiness--conveyed so well in the book--has completely eluded the moviemakers. Oh, and the movie is 2 hours too long. The only saving grace of this movie is watching the charismatic Lady Chablis, played by herself. Still, it's much more fun to read about her, so save yourself the misery and grab the book.

John Cusack plays John Kelso, a New York writer who goes down to Savannah, Georgia to interview Jim Williams (Kevin Spacey), a wealthy socialite and art connoisseur who likes to give expensive parties. While in Savannah, Kelso gets involved in murder, voodoo, and some eccentric characters. Kelso is a plot-convenient stand-in for John Berendt, the author of the nonfiction book upon which the film's screenplay was based. With the film's intriguing title, maybe I was expecting too much. I really don't know what director Eastwood was trying to tell us here. The film was cluttered with disjointed subplots, which included: a murder and subsequent trial, a romance, a character study of Williams, a parade of strange characters largely irrelevant to other subplots, a travelogue of a Southern city, and some voodoo thrown in. The acting ranged from good (Kevin Spacey) to mediocre to fairly poor. The cinematography and the production design were adequate. This film has entertainment value for Kevin Spacey fans. But the story itself lacked focus, and it led nowhere. Indeed, the ending was ambiguous, in an irritating sort of way. The main problem with "Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil" was its questionable rationale. Why was it made? Just because a film is based on a true event does not ensure a favorable cinematic outcome, especially if the film's screenplay digresses significantly from its source. Better direction would have helped a lot, as would a complete rewrite of the screenplay, based on a more cohesive premise.

If, like me, you live in a cave, you may not know that this film is adapted from a bestselling non-fiction book and based on a true story. Each character is based on a real life person, and some of these people even play themselves in the film. It's very hard to believe because every single person in this movie is clinically insane. This movie surprised & impressed the heck out of me. I thought it would be a straightforward thriller, but it's more like a dark comedy with a deep social message. Sort of like "Heathers" meets "To Kill a Mockingbird". In the tradition of "The Unforgiven", director Clint Eastwood again takes us to a place where what you see ain't always what you get. There are 2 sides to every story, and it's just a momentary line that separates the two (as the title says "Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil"). The plot is almost insignificant in light of this. If you watch this film, focus on the dichotomy of outward appearances vs. what's beneath. At times it's about abstract concepts like loyalty which seems solid on the surface, but when tested it flops like a bad soufflé. At other times the theme is quite literal, as with a flamboyantly feminine woman who's hiding "a man's toolbox" under her dress, if ya know what I mean. Everyone in this kooky town has some secret deviation, even though they all coexist in an atmosphere of fine southern charm. Watch John Cusack's expressions closely, and I guarantee you'll get a few big LOLs. He plays the role of a New York writer who finds himself in the middle of this bizarre world, struggling to get a grasp of what's real. He spends most of the first half with his mouth wide open in disbelief. The second half is when the plot kicks in, taking us on a murder mystery and its subsequent courtroom drama. Here the film changes to a more serious tone, but the themes remain the same. Don't expect any car chases, shootouts or flashy pyrotechnics. Don't even expect much of a Sherlock Holmesian revelation to the mystery. But if you go into it not knowing what to expect, I think you'll have a great time.

Eastwood should never have been able to get his hands on the movie rights. The book is completely true. I am from Savannah. Eastwood even changed some of the people completely, for example Mandy is actually nothing like Eastwood's daughter in the movie. The real Mandy, (whom I know personally), was involved with Joe Odom and never had a romance with John Berendt (Kelso in the movie). I think Eastwood wanted to give his daughter a movie role so he just cast her without even thinking or caring about the real story. He didn't correctly portray many of the people in the book. Almost the entire trial scene in the movie was untrue. Like I said, Eastwood should have never gotten his hands on the movie rights. If you want the true story, read the book and burn the movie. My rating of this film is a 0.

It is dull and plodding. The characters are given too much time on the screen with little or no effect in developing the narrative which itself is clunky and lacking in suspense. I can see that Clint Eastwood meant well but it is a half-baked affair. I felt that I was watching a first cut rather than the great film everyone has been talking about. Event he acting , from so called established talents, seem like the are there only for the food, drink and the ambiance of the setting, which only partially comes to the fore, and sadly, becomes the only thing that one remembers about this terrible attempt as at movie. I am a big fan of Clint Eastwood but this a monumental failure and I believe all those concerned would have disowned it if it wasn't for their friendship and loyalty to the director.

A clever but flawed example of the black art of adapting a very literary work to film. The plot has been streamlined (one trial instead of four), some of the characters given expanded roles, others dropped out, a fictitious affair inserted. However the essentially journalistic narrative remains, and the theme remains – outsider tries to understand an inward-looking society bent on preserving their environment and way of life and resisting outside influence. Healthy decadence, if there is such a thing. The Jim Williams case is really just a framework for author Berendt's enquiry into what makes Savannah tick, and the film tends to ignore that, concentrating on the trial(s) and Jim's relationship with the author figure, who is given a much bigger role than in the book. Hence some of the color bits, Minerva the voodoo lady, Joe the feckless party giver, even the Lady Chablis (played by herself) seemed kind of irrelevant. Some nice acting was evident. Kevin Spacey as Jim Williams in a silver waistcoat and bushy moustache looked a bit like a riverboat gambler, but he held our attention, if not our sympathy. Jack Thompson as his lawyer showed his courtroom manner has come a long way since 'Breaker Morant' and almost had me convinced he really was a good ole boy from the American South instead of a Melbourne bred actor. The bulldog was good too. Savannah is truly a cute town and deserves a visit; the film does not really do it justice. It's done the tourist industry there some good though. On a recent visit your correspondent was unable to get into Clary's, a fairly ordinary diner made famous by the book and the film, for lunch (they don't do dinner) due to the busloads of tourists that had descended on it. Never mind, there's better food elsewhere - try the deli on Drayton – Parker's, I think.

It is 4 years since I first saw this movie (and commented on it before reading the book on which it is based). Having since read the book twice, I thought it time to look at the movie again. I can now see why some of those who had read the book are so dismissive of the movie. I still think it is an interesting, well cast film - but it could have been done better - and that is a pity. There is of course no reason to expect a movie to be an exact replica of a book, but when it is such an excellent book it is a pity that Eastwood chose to alter things unnecessarily. Too much of his daughter (charming though she may be), too much Lady Chablis (fascinating ditto). These additions took up time and space where the actual story could have been fleshed out more. In spite of these minor quibbles, I still think it is an interesting story - and to fans of the book I say - accept it for what it is - it is a fascinating film, entertaining and well worth watching.

I haven't read the book. Might have hated the film if I had. But I liked it. I did read some reviews before viewing the film, and I was prepared to dislike it. A lot of the criticism has some validity. The movie isn't really a linear type of murder mystery. It's partly that and partly a quirky travelogue of Savannah. The Lady Chablis character gets way too much screen time, apparently because Eastwood thinks that it will entertain us. It does, but only to a point. However, this is a different sort of movie, so I understand why Eastwood includes so much of Chablis, and the voodoo woman, and the fly guy. Also, John Cusack plays it with the same dead-fish expressionlessness that he brings to most of his roles. This isn't really bad, it's just that he's always the same. I had never seen one of Kevin Spacey's films before, and I am impressed at how he really nailed the role. I thought his performance made this film. A word or two about the accents. Most non-Southern actors really murder Southern accents. I'm from Texas, not the Georgia coast, but I thought Spacey hit the accent just right all the way through. It was always there, but was never the focus. (Streepian in its apparent effortlessness) Jack Thompson did his accent very well, also, particularly since I understand that he's an Aussie. Some other cast members didn't do well with the Southern accent, like Alison Eastwood. She overdid it. It seemed strained. And oh, yeah, Cusack sounds like an accentless Californian rather than a New Yorker. Overall, I guess I've written a lot more criticism than praise, but that wasn't my intent. This was a good movie. Think of it more as an art-house film rather than a mass-market picture, and you might have more realistic expectations.