Movies-TV

This movie is both good and bad...

This is not one of Cusack's best movies. The acting is great; the dialogue is snappy and funny; the plot is confusing and at times, it drags. Cusack is a journalist who unwittingly is present for a murder which throws Savannah into upheaval, and Cusack searches to find out the truth. The ending is a surprise, but for those who like fast-paced movies, I warn you that this is not one. A good movie, but not a great one, I give it a 7.

Very, very boring and badly directed

There are too many flaws in this movie to mention them all here, but some of them are: it's very boring; a simplistic, uninvolving story that is poorly implemented; and lacks any detailed character development. Another indication of the failure of this movie is that we couldn't care less about the outcome of the movie and any of its characters. I was expecting better as this was directed by Clint Eastwood who also directed Absolute Power, which I liked. But this is terrible.

Engaging performances and locale make the film!

THe Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences missed an opportunity to nominate James Spacey for "Best Actor," Jack Thompson for "Best Supporting Actor" and The Lady Chablis for...well, "Best Supporting Actor/Actress." The three talents, along with the exquisite Savannah locations and ambience of the local color, are the reasons to watch Clint Eastwood's adaptation of the best-seller.

Those that read the novel may take offense with the film's shortcomings, but as a separate example of storytelling, the film does entertain, especially with the crisp dialogue given the characters portrayed by the aforementioned actors.

The film also boasts a great supporting cast in Jude Law, Bob Guyton, Irma Hall, Anne Haney, Oscar winner Kim Hunter, Dorothy Loudon, Geoffrey Lewis, and, in a small role, "Smallville's" Michael Rosenbaum.

Unfortunately, John Cusak's part is not very interesting and does not give the actor much of which to work.


As a Georgia native and frequent visitor to Savannah, it's refreshing to see the city presented on the big screen by such crisp cinematography, also deserving of recognition.

Excellent DVD adaptation of decent movie

The excellent adaptation of this movie to the DVD medium more than makes up for the mediocrity (probably to strong of a term) of the movie. When my wife and I had finished watching the movie, we both thought it was done fairly well but was never really as suspensefull as the book. While the screenplay adaption never really grabbed the audience like it could have, the acting was quite good and some of the performances were amazing. Regardless of the actual movie though, the DVD adaptation is fantastic. You feel like you are literally drawn into the city of Savannah to re-experience the best parts of the movie all over again. It is without a doubt one of the best-uses of the DVD medium that I have seen to date.

FANTASTIC MOVIE

I am an avid movie fan and fell in love with this movie. I have watched it 21 times and still enjoy it. It is one of my favorite movies of all times. I enjoy visiting the wonderful town of Savannah even more now. It is beautifully written and narrated. Kevin Spacey is fantastic as always!

ALPAY SÝREK

I HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE A BORING FILM LIKE THIS. I SLEPT BY WATCING IT. I COULDN'T SEE THE END OF FILM AND IN FACT,I DON'T CARE.DON'T BUY IT CERTAINLY...

Great movie

This is one of my favorites. I have always had a thing for John Cusack, and this movie just intensifies the feeling. The plot was twisted enough to keep me interested and the characters were eccentric and interesting. At the beginning of this movie Savannah seems like a old, sleepy, southern city, but towards the end it was like Sodom and Gomorrah. Loved this movie!

Read the Book, See the Movie...

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.

not one of Clint Eastwood's best efforts nor one of his worst

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.

A little flabby, but otherwise excellent

I have read the book, and bought the DVD. In a way they compliment each other; the book provides the real story, and the film allows you to read the book and have the characters in your mind. There were a couple of extraneous things that could have been done away with without damaging the film. For example, the John Cussak love interest did not appear in the book at all, and really didn't add to the film, although Ms. Eastwood did a good enough job.

The book was less about the murder trial, and more about the bizzare inhabitants the author encountered. I think Clint Eastwood did a great balancing act; that is to say, struck a good balance between displaying these excentrics and moving the plot along.

The Lady Chablis and Minerva were the two most interesting characters in the film.

The DVD itself has some interesting extras, including interviews with some of the people on whom the book was based. I liked the fact that they included many of them in the movie; for example, the real-life defense lawyer plays the judge in the movie, and many of the ladies at the card club played in that scene.

Overall, I recommend this film highly, especially if you are into flicks that are character-driven, and take their time unfolding.

Clint Eastwood isn't blind.

The TV-program listed this movie and gave it a five out of six rating. I didn't understand much of the title, and didn't know what to expect at all. And when it said directed by Clint Eastwood, I was really sceptical, not that I doubt Clint Eastwood's talent, but I just didn't know what this could be all about. So, naturally, I sat down to watch.First of all, I should say Kevin Spacey does a fantastic homosexual man, and John Cusack's a fine journalist character. And Clint Eastwood's directing amazes me.The second thing that comes to mind, is the fact that this is a movie based on a true story. And all characters depicted in the movie are also based on real people, and they're all pretty weird too. And they're all mixed together in an interesting plot. What is truth? What is an eye? Who beholds and who believes the beholder?What I didn't quite get about the movie, was wether or not it was supposed to be comedy or drama. I guess it's a bit of both; at times it's hilarious, sometimes it's even scary. And you never know where it's going to take you, ie it's a very unpredictable movie, which is a major plus.You'll have to watch this a couple of times before you get it all. Maybe it helps reading the book, I don't know. What are movies about? What's this about? Watch it. Enjoy, and play it again.***/*****

Superb cast , lush scenery make a great movie!

What a super movie! The interaction between all the characters is great, but especially between Kevin Spacey and John Cusack, and John Cusack and the Lady Chablis! I have watched this movie at least 5 times, and enjoy and learn more each time! Kevin Spacey looks so much like Jim Williams it is eery. Mr. Spacey is a consumate actor with an amazing ability to totally immerse himself in the character he is playing, and in that process, draws the viewer into the story with him! Whether the movie captures the true essence of the book does not matter to me, for the movie truly has the ability to entertain and intrique.

midnight in the garden of good and awful

This is a complete travesty of a compelling book and tantalizing real-life story. Someone commented that it was an hour too long. Try 90 minutes. The only lively scenes were those with Lady Chablis. These should have been cut as they were extraneous and made the movie too drawn out. The only problem with that is, they were the only decent scenes in the movie - so we are stuck with a numbing experience of what should have been an electrifying film.Having been to Savannah and seen photos of the real Jim Williams, the resemblance between him and Kevin Spacey is positively frightening - fantastic casting. Anyone who has visited Savannah will love the location shots also. You will most certainly want to see this film if you know the book or have visited the city. If so, I suggest seeing it in two sections.A great disappointment. P.S. Mr. Eastwood, there was certainly enough story (which you didn't bother with) without inserting an extraneous love interest.

medicore

The "Book" started the whole fascination with Savannah, so it was obvious that a movie would be made. A lot of people slammed this film for various reasons, but truth be told it is not a bad movie. It just isn't up to par with the magic of Berendt's best-selling book, which is a real shame considering the level of talent present for the film. The movie suffers from a slow-moving plot, as well as an attempt to include every little facet of the book. The entertaining scenes are there, problem is they are few and far between. This film is worth watching nonetheless simply for the footage in Savannah and of Mercer House, but the book leaves this dvd squarely in the bargain bin.

Loved it, but the book was so much better...

I loved this movie. I remember watching this movie when it came out. I love John Cusak and do remember liking it but thinking it was kind of long and drawn out. I found out later that this was based on a true story which made me like the movie more because I find true stories fascinating.I am not a big reader but like to listen to audio books during my long commute. I decided to get the unabridged Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. This book was excellent and so was the commentary by the author.This made me want to rent the movie again. I did. The movie contains the characters from the book but they are not introduced in the right order. It is cool that the Piano lady was the real one from the book and that Lady Chabils played herself in the movie, but I really recommend reading (if you are a reader) the book or getting the unabridged audio book.

Fabulous film

I can't help it, but i gotta confess I keep wathcing it for Chablis- I adore her! She has a book out too called "Hiding my candy". Love you Chablis!!!

READ THE BOOK DON"T WATCH THE MOVIE

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.

You will feel the passage of every dull second.

Lifeless. Flat. Uninspired. Half-baked. These really words really hold up only through the first hour and forty-five minutes, at which point an ending would have been charitable. For the next 50 minutes I sunk into pure, mind-numbing disbelief that the film continued. I have not been as conscious of a movie's interminable length since DiCapprio's "Man in the Iron Mask," which was two hours long and seemed like four. Kevin Spacey is a remarkable actor and John Cusack is sometimes brilliant and almost always fun, but they are powerless to save this movie and in fact you will watch with horror as they vanish into its gaping maw. There is a mystery you don't care about, a romance you don't care about, scene after uninteresting scene. Forgettable characters, forgettable lines. Each new thread in the plot is introduced and then forgotten about, abandoned but not revised. You will be left positively unfrightened by a randomly inserted graveyard voodoo scene, and struggle to be surprised by Spacey's tacked-on homosexuality and to care at all about the half-hearted, nearly invisible cliches that ensue.

A TOUCH DRAWN OUT, BUT SPLENDID.

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. But with the likes of Spacey, Cussack and Jude Law this was surely not a trivial pursuit either, especially with Clint Eastwood at the helm. Unlike many people, I love the relaxed pace with which his movies unfold -- Dirty Harry movies, Bridges of Madison County, The Rookie etc.

"Midnight" had me glued to the sceen within 10 minutes. On the surface a murder mystery, and it is intriguing although not entirely unpredictable, this is actually more of a character study as all Eastwood endeavours are. The backdrop of Savannah is amazing, and the acting above par, especially Spacey as a homosexual Williams.

On the quibbles side, I was irritated by what I felt were John's and Chablis' hyperactive roles in the court case, but I suppose I can understand the reasoning behind it. Just as irritating, and entirely disposable, was the romantic subplot. 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 in the book.

These minor notes could have perhaps condensed the movie a touch, but that's not to say that this a prime-time topnotch film that you have to watch if you care about meaningful cinema.

"...this place is fantastic, it's like 'Gone With The Wind' on mescaline."

Kelso's (John Cusack) quote in the summary above just about says it all for this film, it was a blast and a half to watch with graveyard voodoo rituals and the brazen performance of Lady Chablis. About the time Jim Williams (Kevin Spacey) was having his heart attack, and getting the knowing smile from Billy Hanson (Jude Law), I felt the film had borrowed a chapter from 'The Twilight Zone'.Not having read the book, my viewing had no preconceptions of how the story should be presented, perhaps a good thing judging by the comments of other reviewers on this board. Kevin Spacey was entirely credible as a sophisticated Southern gentleman; Cusack as the reporter might have shown more range but he played off the other characters well enough. Knowing nothing of the actor who portrayed Lady Chablis, imagine my surprise when I learned that he/she was actually a real person. That might explain the lack of an award nomination, there isn't a category. The line on the witness stand about having a 'man's toolbox' was the best.This was quite the entertaining story, with a twist that makes the innocent Jim Williams guilty, capitalizing on a police error to ride out the jury trial. Mysterious forces at work bring him to justice however, cleverly linked by the midnight handiwork of priestess Minerva and the restless spirit of the murdered Billy. It's a minor role for Jude Law, though he brings some manic tension to the proceedings. However if you only need one reason to see the film, it's hands down Lady Chablis, setting us up with - "Would you care to see something a little more... unusual?"