Minuit dans le jardin du bien et du mal
Original title: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
- 1997
- Tous publics
- 2h 35m
IMDb RATING
6.6/10
43K
YOUR RATING
A visiting city reporter's assignment suddenly revolves around the murder trial of a local millionaire, who he befriends.A visiting city reporter's assignment suddenly revolves around the murder trial of a local millionaire, who he befriends.A visiting city reporter's assignment suddenly revolves around the murder trial of a local millionaire, who he befriends.
- Awards
- 1 win & 4 nominations total
Lady Chablis
- Chablis Deveau
- (as The Lady Chablis)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 got the chance to view this recently on video and to me it left me in total awe. This is Clint Eastwood's best movie to date in a line of good movies that include his directorial debut from "Play Misty For Me" to his brandish westerns like "The Outlaw Josey Wales" to his Oscar winning "Unforgiven",to even his soft hearted material ranging from his military drama "Heartbreak Ridge" to the emotional "The Bridges of Madison County". But here "Midnight In The Garden Of Good and Evil" is astounding entertainment and it features actor Kevin Spacey in one of his most gifted role of his career. The movie focuses on the happenings of Savannah,Georgia where the city of hot nights and cold-blooded murder all rolled into one. Its a rarely do movies of this magnitude show so much of true southern city they are depicting and basically get it right. It also shows in the first half of the movie the that way these houses and the designs which are depicted is incredible(yes,Mr. Eastwood has a eye for good art)and they way details are properly set,especially with the Christmas party dinner scene is perfect as well as the overall architecture of some of the most lavish houses ever bulit(if you ever go down to Savannah you must see this to believe it and its worth the trip) as well as the proper way to show courtesy of upright manners in front of your guests where hospitality is always first rate. But as far as the movie is concern(which is based on John Berendt's novel of the same title)what you see is depicted throughout the movie and the overall beauty of the city of Savannah. The people are so loving and caring that it makes you not only leave,but stay here more to see what happens next. I got the chance to read the book on this,but I take the book over the movie as a tossup,but you will not be disappointed. A grand style of entertainment at its finest hour. Thank you so much Kevin Spacey and director Clint Eastwood.
Did you know
- TriviaWhile filming took place in the actual Mercer house, production could not find an insurance company that would underwrite the project given the extensive value of the antiques. All of the items seen in the movie are therefore replicas with the originals stowed in storage during filming.
- GoofsWhen Chablis is at the cotillion she asks a woman at the table to watch her purse. After dancing, getting a drink, and leaving, she never retrieves her purse.
- Quotes
The Lady Chablis: It's like my mom always said: "Two tears in a bucket, motherfuck it."
John Kelso: I'll have to remember that one.
- Crazy creditsClosing disclaimer: This film is based upon John Berendt's book "MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL". Dialogue and certain events and characters contained in the film were created for the purposes of dramatization.
- Alternate versionsThe UK Region 2 multi-DVD box set titled "CLINT EASTWOOD 35 YEARS, 35 FILMS" (EAN 5051892017114) released on August 16, 2010 makes reference to the inclusion of a Director's Cut. Eastwood has admitted to shooting a "love scene" between Kevin Spacey and Alison Eastwood and then cutting it from this film and although not confirmed it is suspected this is included to make some or all of the Director's Cut. The latter information sourced from http://www.screenit.com/movies/1997/midnight_in_the_garden_of_good_&_evil.html
- ConnectionsFeatured in Eastwood on Eastwood (1997)
- How long is Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Languages
- Also known as
- Media noche en el jardín del bien y del mal
- Filming locations
- Mercer House - 429 Bull Street, Savannah, Georgia, USA(Williams' house)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $35,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $25,105,255
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $5,233,658
- Nov 23, 1997
- Gross worldwide
- $25,105,255
- Runtime
- 2h 35m(155 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content