Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    Like "Citizen Kane" and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," "Midnight At The Garden Of Good And Evil" is a movie about a writer trying to get a simple story, and finding himself with more than he bargained for. John Cusack is the writer, John Kelso, and his explorations of Savannah, Georgia offer some mystery and fun, though the result will be flat for those who already know the story from reading the best-selling book.

    "Better to be on the edge of a party, don't you think?" a young woman named Mandy (Alison Eastwood) asks Kelso at one point. It's a pertinent question. Alison's father Clint and screenwriter John Lee Hancock try to accomplish much the same effect here, dancing at the perimeters of things, showing conversations where words can not be discerned. Many times we see Kelso looking in on some social function from the outside, like at a cotillion for black debutantes or bridge games at the Married Women's Club, a bit adrift but interested in the games people play.

    At the same time, Kelso becomes quite close to one Savannah resident, Joe Williams, an art dealer whose homosexuality is an open secret until he comes out of the closet by shooting his boy-toy. Kevin Spacey's performance as Williams is rich and fun, his accent not note-perfect but well-tailored to his polished delivery. The way he lazily smokes his cigars as he moves through a party, dabbles in lowcountry voodoo with Jesuitical zeal, or even eats gumbo in prison is a study in an actor's sense of the wholeness of the role.

    While many book fans savage this with the comment "It's not what I read in the book," I take it in stride. John Berendt didn't carry this thing down from Mt. Sinai either - most notably by presenting the killing as something that happens after his arrival rather than before he played with the facts in the book. So when the film gives us a romance between Berendt's stand-in Kelso and Mandy or invents connections between the Williams story and the others in the book so the secondary characters can appear in the main story, it kind of works in an offbeat way.

    What doesn't work is the pace. The film goes on for over two and a half hours, and feels longer. Eastwood obviously approached this project with enthusiasm for the book, and especially for the music of Johnny Mercer which is prominently featured. But the comedy feels labored, the depiction of Williams' trial too unshaded in its sympathy for the defendant, and many of the performances, like that of Jude Law as the dead loverboy, seem underbaked.

    Two good performances are delivered by people who had real-life roles in the book. Sonny Seiler, who defended Williams, plays the judge in the trial and gets to tell himself when he's out of order. The Lady Chablis, who I never cared for much in the book, has an engaging vulnerability on screen. Even when the story screeches off track by focusing on her character, she makes the logic gaps less bothersome with her playfulness.

    I even liked Alison Eastwood, who does a good accent, looks the part of Mandy, and makes the film's most egregious detour from the book seem less of a violation. Not a stunner, but her languid delivery and drooping eyelids are very sensual in the everyday manner she presents us with, a half-promise of something good reaching out to you in the dark. In that way, she recreates the spirit of the book quite wonderfully. Pity her father didn't always do the same, but this is an entertaining film more often than not.
  • Definitely in that order. It increases comprehension. In fact, from reading some of the other reviews here, it may be the only way to enjoy this movie.

    A great read; a better-than-I-expected screen adaptation. I had to see it, because I couldn't imagine how such a character-driven work would be handled on film. I will tell you that I was predisposed to think that it would not be handled well, but I was pleasantly surprised.

    All in all, this movie manages to do a good job of condensing the book into a non-butt-busting film length, while remaining generally faithful to it. The length and the slowness of the movie are really the only ways to convey the meanderings of the book. It's part of the way this movie creates the slow Southern atmosphere that is such an integral part of the story. Savannah is a character in the book, and the only unifying force other than the author. It's easier to convey that in words than pictures, but Eastwood has done a good job of getting the point across here.

    The casting is mostly great, particularly the supporting characters. Irma P. Hall's portrayal of Minerva is somehow soothing and slightly menacing, just as the woman seems in the book. I didn't know how the casting of the actual Chablis would affect the film, but she really delivers the goods without seeming like stunt casting.

    I was irritated by what I felt were John's and Chablis' too-active roles in the court case, but I suppose I can understand the reasoning behind it. I don't have to like it, but I understand it. Just as irritating, and entirely disposable, was the romantic subplot. These two elements seemed out of the role of observer that Berendt makes for himself the book. Also, the Mandy character is sapped by taking a big, beautiful, interesting woman and making her a generic cute chick. Alison Eastwood does what she can with this bland creation, but I have a feeling that the movie character never would have been featured the book.

    No, it's not the book, but no movie ever could be. A slavish adaptation would have been a truly boring film, not to mention way longer than this effort. (Can you say, "Just rent the AudioBook?") And no, it's not a twisting, turning thrill-ride, because the book isn't exactly jam-packed with plot. It is, however, a decent movie if viewed on its own terms and for its own merits. And after you've read the book.
  • Like every film Clint Eastwood makes, "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" is fascinated by the mystery of masculinity: what it means to be a man, and what you have to do to be the kind of man you think you need to be -- whether that's a father, a member of a cultural group, or the ideal man in a certain social situation. Two highly-acclaimed recent Eastwood films -- "Mystic River" and "Million-Dollar Baby" -- mildly disappointed me by sinking into oversimplification and predictability. Possibly Eastwood's directing hand is more interesting when less "self-assured," because 1997's "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" follows these questions down less well-defined, and thus less predictable, paths. Maintaining a scrupulously neutral eye, the film recounts a complex tale of murder, involving characters who are recognizable types on the surface but carry deep difference underneath. It unfurls a slow, rich, and troubling narrative which answers the mysteries of its crime premise even as it opens much more difficult questions about the very things that murder stories are supposed to make simple: innocence, guilt, motivations, affection, and its characters' so-called morality.

    Thanks in large part to a literally mesmerizing performance by Kevin Spacey (I'm riveted every time he appears on screen) and a well- balanced turn by John Cusack as the sympathetic investigating reporter, who charms us even as he maintains a total and focused receptivity to new information and strange events, the movie fills its two and a half hours with a slow-paced and carefully balanced story that brings us into the suffocating green world of Southern Gothic, with its all its mannered refinements, thick silences and passionate secrets. There's something in this film that would have pleased Tennessee Williams or Truman Capote, those cool-eyed investigators of the closeted South. John Berendt's nuanced book, Spacey's restrained, smoldering performance and Eastwood's lucidly hands-off direction have created a strange, slow gem of a film. It's not a gem appreciated by everyone, but two years before Spacey's turn in "American Beauty" struck a chord that resonated with the wider public, "Midnight in the Garden" asks similar questions in a context that is, at the same time, more precise, more exotic, and equally American.
  • I think Eastwood did a good directing job, but should have left about 25% on the cutting room floor. It's a good story, with Cusack being the eyewitness to Spacey's millionaire eccentricities. Spacey is one of the most threatening figures in all of acting. Cusack's character is merely a vehicle for the story. Part of the problem for me is the supernatural stuff. The story could have stood on its own without all that voodoo stuff. Also, the character of Chablis, while entertaining at times, gets really tiresome. His/Her appearance in the courtroom is a big disappointment. This person is there for comic relief but really doesn't advance the plot, other than to show us how open minded Cusack's character is. Shorten this film by a half hour and she the superfluities, and it becomes taut and gripping. I did enjoy the defense attorney with his "aw shucks" mentality (Who's Hobbes?), but without our favorite villain, it was not great. Also, the conclusion was too much. Stop it right there.
  • I am at a loss as to how anyone can not like this film. It was pure genius. Cusack plays a somewhat stereotypical character (which was very appropriate for the movie, it created a perfect contrast between the cultures of New York and Savannah). Kevin Spacey was nothing short of amazing, better than in The Usual Suspects, and almost as good as in American Beauty. Lady Chablis was also excellent. I especially enjoyed watching Lady Chablis and Jim Kelso's relationship mature and change throughout the film. I have seen the movie numerous times and plan to see it again. Though, it is not for those who wish to go to a movie to be simply entertained. Highly recommended....

    10/10
  • If you have read Berendt's novel before seeing this film, you may be disappointed. It is extremely difficult to portray the book's most intricate and interesting characters in a mere two hours, and it definitely shows in Clint Eastwood's adaptation of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.

    One of Eastwood's foibles were casting his daughter as fiancee to Joe Odom (a great character in the book). A romance between her the fictitious writer Kelso (John Cusack) is a ridiculous addition to the film. What would have been best was to have Berendt play himself in the movie, despite the fact that Cusack does a good job with Kelso. The best part of the novel is the sexual tension between the gay Berendt and the murderous antiques dealer, Jim Williams (Kevin Spacey) and it is missed from the film.

    Also, there is Lady Chablis overkill. Lady Chablis was merely a supporting character in the book. To inflate her role in this way merely because she was playing herself is pure foolishness and vanity. It is sad that the real sexual relationships in the book are overshadowed by silly comic relief from the drag queen Chablis. It just goes to show how uncomfortable Hollywood is with serious gay characters and how funny cross-dressers are the only accepted queer roles.

    Good points about the film? Kevin Spacey, as usual, puts his all into his role as Jim Williams and the Savannah cinematography is superb. Other than that, the film tends to drag and the performances and the ending are not particularly interesting. Do yourself a favor and rent the movie before you read the book. Or even better, (unless you're a big Spacey or Cusack fan) just read Berendt's charming piece of nonfiction.
  • "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" has a fairly inauspicious beginning for an Eastwood film, with journalist John Kelso (John Cusack) arriving in Savannah Georgia to document the Christmas party of local personality Jim Williams (Kevin Spacey). Planted in the dense foliage of Georgia, a violent encounter soon sends Kelso on a trail of events to pry open the personal lives of these Cajun residents, and maybe even finding his story underneath it all.

    Whilst the film moves slow under its carefree southern veneer, the eccentric range of quirky characters, ranging from party-throwing squatters, a flirtatious transvestite, and best of all, a jive-talking voodoo practitioner, all provide entertaining and comedic encounters for Kelso.

    The film soon transitions to a courtroom drama that centers around the trial of millionaire Jim Williams, played by a moustachioed Kevin Spacey. He is able to pull of the accent convincingly, and that is all that is required in order for him to convince you as a southern artisocrat even as he spits out one-liners in supreme Spacey fashion. But there remains a hidden intention beneath his character's surface that he hints at all too well with the eyes.

    In fact, all the actors are in top form here, even a distracting Jude Law in a brief role. If it's anyone, it is John Cusack as the main character who perhaps leaves a bit more to be desired, along with his underdeveloped and tacked on love interest. Still, she is played well by Alison Eastwood, and together with Clint himself, they put together an atmospheric soundtrack that only adds to the immersion.

    Ill-paced and often confusing at times, "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" is still a worthwhile romp into the secrets of America's southern edge... one that at times feels like another planet.
  • In his review of Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil, Roger Ebert writes that you would probably enjoy the film more if you haven't previously read John Berendt's book on which it is based. Well, I haven't read Berendt's book and must report that I rather enjoyed the film. It reminded me of the observation (and I have tracked that down to first being said by Mark Twain, but it might well have been someone else before him) that it's 'a good story well told'. And at the end of the day you can't really ask for more than that. Well, of course you can, but you run the risk of being rather greedy. With Midnight, Clint Eastwood has made a film which is intriguing and entertaining. Admittedly, to do so he has had to adapt Berendt's account of mysterious murder and a very colourful gang of people living in Savannah, Georgia, which has upset purist, but, as I said, I hadn't read the original book, and so I would never have known had I not read other reviews. I always feel filmmakers have an inalienable right to make a film 'based on' rather than 'of' a book because, in essence, they are creating a new piece of art (one hopes) rather than simply transferring a story from one medium to another. Clint Eastwood has made good use of that right and, pertinently, hasn't abused it. So, for example, criticism that he has boiled down the unprecedented four trial antique dealer Jim Williams faced on the charge of murdering a male hustler into one can be countered by observing that including four trials in his film would have meant making a very different film indeed and boiling it down to one (and altering crucial details to do so) makes admirable sense. Those of us who haven't read Berendt's book do not feel short-changed, and the film still stands steadily on its own two feet. The writer portrayed by John Cusack (intended to represent Berendt although he is called Kelso in the film) is the only fictional character, and the rest are all real, which must have presented Eastwood with something close to a legal nightmare in that none of the characters could be portrayed in a bad light or else they might sue for libel. The film also introduces a romance between Kelso and Mandy (who was real but who didn't fall in love with the Kelso character) which in retrospect has absolutely nothing to do with the core of the story. But it does provide a pleasant dimension to the film in as far as Kelso is rather likable and so is Mandy so why not pair them off. There was absolutely no reason to do so, except to add a little love interest to the film, but there again there was absolutely no reason not to: it doesn't in the slightest detract from the film, so what the hell. Lady Chablis, the real-life drag queen of portrays himself - herself? - is something of a tour de force. Yet again there is a longish scene when she turns up at a middle-class black prom to which (for some reason not made clear) Kelso has been invited and proceeds to scandalise him which doesn't advance the story very much. It seems more intent on showcasing Lady Chablis' outrageousness, but as it's very entertaining, I feel Eastwood can be forgiven including it. To sum up: Midnight is an entertaining account of a series of whackos in Savannah, Georgia, an intriguing murder story and has many good performances, not least from Kevin Spacey as the gay antiques dealer and Cusack as the writer. If you have read Berendt's highly praised book, you might well be disappointed. If, like me, you haven't you won't be. Give it a whirl and you'll find you won't regret having done so.
  • A stylish and haunting film-noir thriller, "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" is another lesson in peerless film-making by Clint Eastwood. John Cusack makes one of his most positive performances and skips the usual charming giddiness he is famed for. The storyline never ceases to surprise you and neither do the characters. Spacey's Jim Williams is one of the most fascinating villains ever and Spacey again delivers a perfect performance. More solid work comes from Allison Eastwood, Jude Law and Lady Chablis, the humorous treat of the film.

    The most mystic and chilling scene is in the middle of the film, when Williams and Kelso visit Minerva, the scene which gives the movie its name. The climax is also incredibly well written and directed, one of the most suspenseful ever. A bravura work from a man who has long since learned how to make perfect film noirs. A highly enjoyable and recommendable movie.10/10
  • Clint Eastwood directs this tale of murder, society and deceit set in Savannah. Wealthy socialite Jim Williams (Spacey) invites writer John Kelso (Cusack) to cover one of his highly esteemed parties at Christmas. However, complications arise when a man, an acquaintance of Williams' is shot following an argument over money. Kelso decides to stick around and write up the case, but is there more going on here than meets the eye? Guilty of overstuff, Eastwood's adaptation of the novel is well acted and directed, but several elements, most prominently a voodoo shaman (hence the story's title), go nowhere or add to the themes of power, relationships and prejudice. At two and half hours, it just feels like screenwriter John Lee Hancock didn't know what else to cut (apparently, the one trial of the film was four in reality), and so there are strands here that simply don't add to the main thrust of the narrative as we learn more about what really happened with Williams. The voodoo aspect is maybe 10% of the film, and is honestly only here because it explains the title, and an event that happens later in the film that has an alternate explanation.

    Still, those elements don't entirely eclipse a fairly engaging legal drama, giving you a decent lens into the investigation and methods of the trial, as well as a stellar performance from Spacey. He's alternately charming and smooth, a man you'd like to be around, yet you sense something's amiss and that's there more going on under the surface. Plus, the film has a good sense of humour about itself, be it with Williams or with Lady Chablis, a transgender performer who has ties to the victim and often plays around with Kelso, including a pretty fun bit in an ER.

    In the end 'Midnight' is in the mid tier of Eastwood's filmography: well made and entertaining, but bloated and maybe needed a rethink or different writer to tighten it up. Still, it's leagues better than 'J. Edgar' or some of his recent works.
  • The bestseller "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" was a non-fiction book and though it dealt with a true life murder case, it was shelved in the travel section in many bookstores. Indeed, if you read the book, you'd be way past page 100 before any reference to the murder appears. The killing of Danny Hansford by Jim Williams was used largely as a pretext by author John Berendt as an excuse to pen an affectionate travelogue about the city of Savannah, Georgia; it's largely a leisurely tour of the city and a genteel introduction to many of the city's quirkier citizens.

    Clint Eastwood's movie version of MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL is only about the murder, more or less, with most of the colorful characters edited out or reduced to crude jokes. And for all the location filming that Eastwood did in Savannah, he could just as easily have shot the entire film on the Universal backlot. Devoid of local color or a quixotic taste for the off beat and amusing, MIDNIGHT ends up playing as though it were an uninspired pilot for an unsold TV series. Berendt's book just begged to be translated to the big screen by someone unconventional like Robert Altman, someone with the knack for and an interest in ensemble dramas and a slightly skewed vision of the world -- not someone conventional, albeit talented, like Eastwood. The book's charm was in its varied vignettes and casual observations about a city straddling two mindsets: clinging to the decorum of the antebellum past while thriving in the pulsating, diverse present. The problem is that in stripping the story down to the basics of the murder trial, it becomes obvious that the trial isn't all that interesting in the first place.

    After a quarrel, wealthy antiques dealer Williams kills his young male lover (played by Jude Law and now renamed Billy Carl Hanson) and claims it is self defense. Killing is one thing, but the well-to-do of the city are aghast at just how uncouth Williams' behavior appears to be as the ensuing trial brings to light Savannah's hush-hush gay subculture. Though in Eastwood's hands it is less straight versus gay than rich versus poor; as Williams lies and manipulates to get away with murder, there is more than a hint of plantation owner entitlement in the way he justifies his behavior throughout. The problem is, that as played with his usual unctuous arrogance, Kevin Spacey never makes Williams either likable or remarkable. What made the case notable was that the ordeal was stretched out over several years and four lengthy trials that highlighted Williams' cunning nature and taxed the patience of even the most benevolent of Savannah's citizens, all of which the filmmakers condense into one trial and a handful of cliché courtroom moments.

    What Eastwood retains beyond the truncated murder trail is limited in its effectiveness. The book's element of voodoo is present, but done with little sense of mysticism. Minerva, the voodoo priestess played Irma P. Hall, comes off as little more than a crazy old lady stereotype and her midnight visit to the said garden (a cemetery) lacks the power to either give one the creeps or even cause nervous laughter. A huge chunk of the movie is surrendered to "The Lady Chablis," a secondary character in the book and the trial. I suppose Eastwood found it positively shocking to have a black drag queen traipsing around amongst the normal citizens, but in the film the character is less a jolt than a bore. Despite being played by the real person, Lady Chablis (a.k.a. Chablis Deveau, a.k.a. Benjamin Edward Knox) seems woefully miscast and seems more tacky than eccentric or outrageous.

    The worse part of the film is its rather blunt homophobia. Having sidestepped the major point of the book -- the gentle weirdness of the characters -- to focus on the trial, the film then tries to make a gay story seem as straight as possible. The Williams murder trial made public an open secret, that a gay world existed behind the facades of the southern mansions and it was discreetly apparent, quietly tolerated, yet never, never discussed. When a prominent citizen kills his male lover, that sort of don't-ask-don't-tell etiquette is difficult to maintain. The filmmakers deal with the gay issues, but someone (Eastwood, screenwriter John Lee Hancock, the studio?) clearly did not want to make a gay film. Thus homosexuality is treated more like a dirty little scandal rather than a naughty little secret; something to be held at arm's length or viewed as a rude little joke, like Lady Chablis. For instance, the gay author of the book, John Berendt, is played by John Cusack as "John Kelso," and the film makes a point of letting us know he is definitely heterosexual and drives home the point by giving him a female romantic interest not in the book (and played curiously enough by Clint's own daughter, Alison Eastwood). Such cinematic bearding is standard issue for the skin-deep liberalism that Hollywood so righteously embraces.

    Other than being eager to exploit a pre-sold bestseller, it is hard to figure just why this film was made at all. The true crime element has been fictionalized, it's gay themes sanitized, the quirky characters marginalized and the town itself homogenized into banality. Neither good or evil, a story about a time and a place and a people ends up being a movie about nothing in particular and no one of any interest.
  • Sometimes, the measure of a good garden is the diversity of opinions it attracts: looking back over other writers' comments, one is struck by just how good this one must be. Some see weeds and disarray - a classic hothouse garden gone to seed - yet others perceive an Autumnal garden: garish in its primary colours of Fall yet splendid in its descent into decay. A splash of brilliance before the inevitable passage into death of all living things.

    Luckily, I read Berendt's book before seeing the film, and realise just how hard Hancock must have worked to translate it to the screen. It is also, in my mind, one of Eastwood's best (if not THE best) directorial outings. The casting is superb. Not a 'clunker' among them. As an evocation of the decline of the contemporary South, I would offer that it is nonpareil: lazy, sleazy, desperate at times, yet possessed of a dignity that is long past in the rest-of-the-world. Whilst Savannah is not the Big Easy, as portrayed it has much of its charm, artifice, and implied danger. And there's the rub when becoming engrossed in this garden of smoke and mirrors. It appeals to those of us who can only be outsiders looking in.

    The inclusion in the screenplay of Kelsoe's love interest (not present in the book) was, for me, an acceptable complication. It juxtaposed the "Yankee's" at times ingenuous fascination with all around him. His apparent ambivalence toward the sexuality aimed at him by the central characters (Jim and the Lady Chablis are obviously enamoured of him) becomes anchored in his desire to be part of their world but on his terms. Thus the inclusion of a heterosexual relationship which leads to his decision to stay.

    I would offer, however, that one of the most telling scenes (at least in exploration of Kelsoe's character) is his obvious pride in the 'overpaint' - given to him by Jim - hanging on his newly-acquired wall as he tells his 'love-interest' that he is 'here to stay' for at least six months as he writes his book. It is not the presented landscape itself which intrigues us: it is the possibility that something more valuable resides beneath. A mystery left unsolved. Just like Savannah, really. An excellent film. Enjoy it for itself.
  • tadaia28 March 2009
    This wasn't the best film but I have to give some credit to the cast for excellent performances all around (with one exception), and to Eastwood for capturing at least a part of the color and essence from the book. As many have stated the biggest complaint is the film's seeming lack of focus or purpose. The filler is however entertaining as we meet a host of colorful characters that should draw and maintain the viewer's interest... well at least until you discover that the screenwriter and Eastwood have somehow lost their way. Of particular note is Kevin Spacey's performance as the lead character Jim Williams. In addition to nailing his accent, his performance was excellent as an eccentric art dealer, southern gentleman and closet homosexual that is accused of murdering his hustling thug-lover (played by Jude Law). Though I admire Jude Law's other work, regretfully I thought his brief moments on screen here were amateurish, over-acted and well... downright horrid. He paced and posed during his ill-accented rants with all the composure and talent of a jock making a cameo in a high school play. That aside I enjoyed the cast as a whole. As surreal as the setting and characters seemed, their characterizations actually made them believable. I've noted a few criticizing Lady Chablis' excessive use in the film. I agree to a point but I saw her as less comic relief and more a metaphor for the town as a whole. The drag-queen's performance of herself was exceptional with a depth that suggested there was much more to her (and Savannah) than was immediately obvious.

    I suppose that was the best attribute I noted of the film, if I'm kind to Eastwood. I'm a southerner and most films based on the the south tend to portray a very one-dimensional view, whether positive or negative... cruel or genteel. Indeed, Savannah in both the book and movie is in a way a caricature of itself. But EVERYONE, every society, has a story that goes beyond the simplistic. At least I noted an attempt to reveal the humanity of the south and depth of its citizens (the good, bad and ugly).
  • I think I get it about "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil". There is not supposed to be a strong story, but rather the film is a character sketch. And the character that it's sketching is not a person but rather the town of Savannah.

    The town is pretty interesting and the "colorful South" amusing throughout the film. However, it does not make up for the slow pace. The film is obviously derived from a book of much greater complexity, and there are a few holes and things left unexplained. For the first time ever I did not like Kevin Spacey's acting. There are a few neat twists and tricks, especially "To understand the living, you gotta commune wit' the dead!"

    Who should see this film:

    -- arty drama types, this is your kind of film

    -- anybody from this region of the world

    I'll give Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil a so-so 6 out of 10, which is the highest rating I'll give a film I didn't really enjoy watching.
  • First of all I did not read the book. Have you ever seen a movie where all through it you're thinking, "Alright, something's gonna happen any minute and it's gonna blow my mind." But it never did! I left this movie thinking, "Hey, wait just a minute, here. What's the deal?" Did I miss something or was this one of the most disappointing 2 1/2 hours of movie ever? I liked Kevin, John and most of the cast. But nothing happens! It's almost riveting to watch nothing happen for a whole movie.
  • ***SPOILERS*** Long drawn out murder mystery that goes on and on until you lose sight of what's happening by all the different odd ball characters thrown into it.

    It all starts quit innocently enough when "Town & Country" columnist John Kelso, John Cusack, is invited to Savannah antique and art collector Jim Williams', Kevin Spacey, sprawling southern mansion for his annual Christmas Party to write a 500 word story on it. While chatting with Williams about him and his famous parties that anyone whose anyone, in the city of Savannah, just has to be invited too to be considered anyone in pops up Williams' drunk as a skunk house boy Billy Hanson, Jude Law, and in a violent argument with Williams, over his pay, breaks a whiskey bottle and threatens to cut his face up with it! Later as Kelso is trying to overcome this slice of life in Savannah as well as "Southern Hospitably", in what he saw between Williams & Hanson, it's reported that Hanson had been found shot to death in the Williams Mansion with Jim Williams being the one who shot him! With Kelso seeing just how wild and dangerous Hanson was towards Williams he ends up being considered a star witness in Williams upcoming murder trial.

    At first an open and shut case of self-defense on Williams' part things start to surface about him and Hanson that shows that his motives were more of self-preservation, in keeping his darkest of secrets from seeing the light of day, then anything else! In Kelso tracking down Hanson's former landlady the outrageous Chablis Deveau, Lady Chablis, he soon finds out that Hanson was a male hustler who's clients were both men and women with Williams being one of them! In fact Williams made Hanson his personal companion, or gay lover, to be with him at all times even when he went overseas! The fact that Williams was obviously being blackmailed by Hanson, in revealing his closeted gay lifestyle, may have been the reason for his being killed by him.

    ***SPOILER*** As things started to go, no pun intended, south for Williams he in desperation gets in touch with Voodoo Priestess Minerva, Irma P. Hall, to put a hex on the judge and jury trying him to keep Williams from getting convicted and sent away for life if not to Georgia State prison's death row. Kelso who at first believed Williams' account of his killing Hanson in self-defense later had second thoughts about it from none other then Williams himself. Williams in what seem to be a heart felt jail-house confession admitted to a stunned Kelso that he in fact did kill Hanson but out of rage in his planning to expose him, as being gay, then anything else! This shocking revelation on Williams' part had the hex that he had Minerva concocted for him, in a Savannah Voodoo cemetery, backfire on Williams even though he did in fact beat the rap, or murder charge, against him in court!

    P.S True story based on the best selling book-that was on the prestigious NY Times book review list for an astounding 216 weeks- "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" By John Berendt does bring out the sleazy and supernatural-in regards to Voodoo-aspects of the story. But like in most "true stories" that are made into movies the truth is far stranger then the movie that was based on it.

    It's true that Williams, like in the film, was found innocent in Hanson's death but it took four, not one like in the movie, trials to exonerate him. In the first two trials Williams was convicted and the convictions were later overturned by a higher court. The third trial ended up in a mistrial and it was then decided to have a change of venue and try Williams for a forth time in Agusta Ga. where he was finally, after eight years, found innocent of murdering Hanson! Now free and, if what he told Kelso is true, getting away with murder Williams suddenly died at age 59 of complications from pneumonia that lead to heart failure just six months, on January 14, 1990, after he won his freedom! It's as if Miverva's Voodoo hex did in fact work by striking down the guilty person-Jim Williams-she unknowingly conjured it up for!
  • Overlong, but beautifully-produced, intriguing and entertaining adaptation of John Berendt's fact-based bestseller about Savannah, Georgia high society, and the smug cosmopolite who is implicated in the murder of a male hustler. In the complex lead, Kevin Spacey never resorts to stereotypical swishiness or actorly twitches, and John Cusack (as the jittery out-of-town journalist who tracks the case) is terrific as well for different reasons (Spacey exudes sexual mystery, while Cusack is a rattled innocent). Film is an oddly merry mélange of eccentric characters, decadent atmospherics, and courtroom theatrics. It is occasionally ponderous (with talky passages), but has been directed (by Clint Eastwood, of all people) with surprising inspiration. Eastwood's real-life daughter Alison is very attractive as a sultry singer, and several other key performances (particularly by The Lady Chablis, Jude Law, and raffish Jack Thompson) are also very fine. **1/2 from ****
  • perfectbond15 November 2004
    I have never read the book this film was based on so I can't comment on its competency as an adaptation. However, I found this murder mystery set in the richly atmospheric south to be a reasonably entertaining movie. Kudos to Eastwood for capturing the magnificence of that glorious land so brilliantly. The casting was also appropriate. John Cusack was dependable as the everyman as usual but it is Kevin Spacey who is truly given the chance to shine, and does, as the bon vivant, Sonny. I wish Jude Law's character had a larger part in the story but that is my only quibble. This film will especially appeal to those who are intrigued by unconventional lifestyles.
  • This is a smoothly textured movie. I mean there are no cinematic thunderbolts involved. It flows along, rich in atmosphere, switching about half-way through from a tourist's view of Savannian eccentrics to a rather ordinary courtroom drama.

    It's one of Eastwood's better movies, about at the level of, say, "Bird" and "Play Misty For Me," although entirely different in content. One of the reasons it's as good as it is, is Bumstead's art direction. I can BELIEVE that this is Jim's or Sonny's home, so tasteful, elegant, and expensive.

    Another reason is the performance of Kevin Spacey, who has been good elsewhere but never better than here as the slyly cynical, secretive, supercilious Sonny. (Sorry about that.) God, he's just great. He sort of WAFTS through the first part of the movie, just barely suggesting his bisexuality, enjoying his cigars and reveling in his money and good taste. John Cusack is a reliable sort of everyman. His character, Kelso, evidently didn't exist in the book. I didn't read the book but I did catch excerpts in the New Yorker.

    But the character is useful here, the way any newbie is useful when we're being introduced to a relatively odd social world. As a writer sent from New York he has to have things explained to him, and they are thus explained to the viewer. The novice character is a useful shorthand expository device. Eastwood's daughter looks the part and is very attractive.

    Sonny's lawyer is a good ol' boy who proclaims proudly to the jury and the judge and the spectators in the courtroom that he has no idea who the writer Hobbes was, but he knows who Perry Mason was. There aren't that many places in the country where ignorance is a point of pride. He kvells he as confesses this, jes' folks, you know? I enjoyed the judge too, played by the guy who was Sonny's real trial lawyer. There are assorted people of unusual character on display. A guy who walks a dog that isn't there. Some guy surrounded by bees. A voodoo priestess. A (gasp) transvestite show girl, Lady Chablis, of whom a little goes a long way. People carry loaded guns to Christmas parties. Sonny and some others are either gay or bisexual. But they are mostly harmless clownish figures. At one point Cusack calls his editor and says, "These people are really weird. New York is boring." Is he supposed to be kidding?

    The fact is that they actually are pretty eccentric, at least the particular social circles we get to see, but they're odd in a user-friendly way, polite, articulate, sensitive to the impression they make on an outsider, blasé about most things including murder. "Sonny went and shot someone -- have some crab cakes?"

    The thing I remember best about the excerpts from the book is the meeting of the lady's bridge club or whatever it is. It's only a snippet in the film, although an enjoyable one, what with the twittering belles all dressed in pink and white flounces and wearing broad-brimmed hats. In real life, as far as I can recall, these little luncheons could have served as a movie unto themselves. The host's door never opened until the scheduled second. The ladies knew one another and were ushered into the parlor where they chatted about circumscribed topics and were served two extremely potent drinks, so they were all smashed within an hour of their arrival. (No men allowed, of course.) They were served a light lunch after a predetermined interval and left precisely at the same time after each meeting. The whole affair was as highly ritualized as a church service.

    Nice use is made of locations. What we see is what might be called the aesthetic component of the community. The houses are painted in pastels and are well kept up. (There's another Savannah that we don't get to see.) Parts of Charleston look picturesque like that too. What we see in the "colored cemetery" isn't voodoo, at least it's not what passes for voodoo in Haiti. It might be called folk spiritualism. The cemetery is an atmospheric place though. Eastwood heightens the effect by having incense smoke drift through the tombstones. (He lapses into another cliché later, when Sonny dies. A man gets dizzy and the camera spins around in a circle.) The statue of the placid young girl, holding a scale in each hand, is a striking image. (She has since been removed for her own safety after the movie was released) The score is by Lennie Niehaus, who used to play an accomplished alto sax in Stan Kenton's band. The courtroom drama is competently done, no more than that.

    This is worth watching, if not worth watching too often. I could have done with less of Lady Chablis and her tootsie roll. She isn't as funny or shocking as she and Eastwood seem to think she is.
  • 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.
  • Clint Eastwood's Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil is something of a mixed bag which works well on some levels while totally misfiring on others. Kevin Spacey is the focal point as Jim Williams although he has relatively little screen time compared to co-star John Cusack and Lady Chablis, a real person who, one suspects, is supposed to be larger than life but is actually just annoying. Spacey is interesting to watch, and nails a role that could so easily tip over into caricature in less able hands.

    He plays Jim Williams, a wealthy ever-so-slightly effete southern gentleman whose homosexuality is an open secret until he shoots hustler Billy Hanson (a hilariously miscast Jude Law) and faces trial for murder. We see Williams only through the eyes of John Kelso (Cusack), a New York journalist who originally visits Williams' home town of Savannah to cover one of his legendary parties but stays on to write a book about the trial. While this gives director Eastwood the opportunity to introduce the viewer to all relevant (and irrelevant) aspects of the people and social customs of this quaint southern town, it also prevents the film from giving Williams' character the in-depth scrutiny he deserves.

    The film meanders along at a leisurely pace that complements the lifestyles of the residents of Savannah, a place which seems to have never made it past the 40s or 50s. But while this should mean we really get to know the characters involved, we never really do. Instead we get a half-hearted romance between Kelso and a local songstress and a quite frankly daft sub-plot involving voodoo and ju-ju that is at odds with most other aspects of the film.

    For those who don't need their films to rush along at three seconds per scene this film will prove to be a fairly satisfying watch, even though the ending - which seems to go on forever - will probably prove unsatisfactory.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Possible spoilers...

    As a film-maker, Clint Eastwood is able of the best and the worst. "Midnight in the garden of good and evil" (1997) remains generally badly perceived by most of his fans. However, I think it deserves a little better than the mixed reputation although it is not to be ranked among Eastwood's best work.

    An adaptation of a best-seller, "Midnight..." can be read both as a judicial movie and a portrayal description. About this second point, the town of Savannah is well highlighted; its Southern atmosphere is particularly enhanced by an original photograph. A little like John Cusack, you are under the fascination of this town with its colorful inhabitants and which bathes in a moist heat. If the inhabitants of Savannah correspond to the description made of them in the film, then truth is stranger than fiction. Beside this description which would be almost worthy of an entomologist, a murder trial takes place. It constitutes the unifying thread of the movie and turns out to be quite gripping in its evolution. Kevin Spacey is accused of having killed his lover Jude Law. In the end, he will give the image of a dishonest man. Indeed, he will prefer to lie about what really happened (he killed Law) and so will be acquitted. Fortunately, the end of the movie is here to remind us the triumph of justice (Spacey will die of a heart attack after his victory). It is the opportunity for Eastwood to confront the notions of good and evil which shows that religion occupies a quite important place in his mind.

    That said, Eastwood's opus is not a major work for the following reasons: the main reproach made to the film-maker is that his movie was much too long. I agree with that. Eastwood shot an overlong movie which often drags on. It could have easily been amputated of half an hour. One can also regret that the disclosure of the truth about Law's murder (when Spacey explains to Cusack the real version of the facts) only appears very belatedly in the film as if Eastwood wanted to keep the best till last. On another hand, the cast remains patchy. Eastwood was wrong to give a role to his daughter Alison who almost acts a decorative role. Let's also regret Jude Law in a much too short apparition.

    Eastwood's master of making is no longer in doubt but the quoted shortcomings are too important and stop the movie to take its place among Eastwood's best films. To be seen but not to be seen again.
  • 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.
An error has occured. Please try again.