Mitternacht im Garten von Gut und Böse

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.

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.

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.

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 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.