Minuit dans le jardin du bien et du mal

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.