Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

Izzy Adkins The movie is surprisingly subdued in its pacing, its characterizations, and its go-for-broke sensibilities.

dworldeater I have not read the book, but I did enjoy the film. Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil" is a pretty solid noirish mystery story with some odd, quirky characters and interesting twists and turns. This is based on a true story, but it is a film so some of the facts and details have been changed from the original story. The story is told from the point of view of John Kelso(Cusack) a writer who becomes embroiled with a murder case and encounters some truly interesting people from the Savannah, Georgia area. We have the Lady Chablis(who plays herself in the movie), a transsexual stand up comedienne, Minerva, a practitioner of voodoo, a man that walks an imaginary dog and a nut job that keeps flies attached to his shirt and threatens to poison the water supply.(that character is played by Eastwood regular, Geoffrey Lewis) John Cusack gives a good performance here, but is nearly outshined by Kevin Spacey, who plays a rich eccentric on trial for murder. Also worth noting is Clint's daughter Alison Eastwood appears and is gorgeous and love interest for leading man John Cusack. The film looks and sounds good and in spite of its oddness or quirkiness plays as a well made and classy film. Interesting film for sure, I definitely need to check out the book.

bazroberts48 A droning, terminally boring movie, unless you are into chiffon, transvestism and phoney Savannah accents. I would rather listen to natural American regional accents than endure 2 hours 15 minutes of badly attempted Southern drawls. Out of the cast there were only about four of them displaying reasonably authentic accents. The plot, for what it was worth was ruined by the director arrogantly making sweeping changes to the book. A blatant attempt at winning a best director Oscar, this time it was justifiably denied. Judging by the move away from this genre, Eastwood has thrown in the Chick Flick towel. A two and a half hour Chick Flick aimed at Academy Awards I can do without, thank you.

matatosky I love this movie intensely. It is a movie adaptation of a book of the same name. If you're a fan of sleuthy novels, you should really pick that book up sometime, as it combines the mystery genre with the charm of a comic book. The movie exaggerates or completely alters the book version. That's not necessarily bad. I first saw this movie on USA one late night and I've never regretted it. It stars John Cusack as John Kelso, a writer who takes on a reporter job for Town & Country to cover a notoriously extravagant tradition of a party that is annually hosted by Jim Williams, played by Kevin Spacey. The parties take place in Savannah, Georgia, a charming city that otherwise falls in obscurity, had it not been for its flamboyant characters and stories. Kelso attends the party as planned, meets some colorful characters along the way and seemingly prepares to depart as the job is now done. Except for the fact that the man who hosts this party, who also asked for Kelso himself to cover it; being a fan of his literary work, commits a murder during the same night of the party and Kelso finds himself not only involved in the ensuing events, but oddly drawn to the mystery behind it as well. The movie delivers some strong performances: John Cusack is always a pleasure to watch and is really an underrated actor, considering he started out as a teen in easygoing movies like 'Class' and 'Better off Dead' and has evolved into a seriously versatile actor with commanding on screen presence. I love watching the guy. Kevin Spacey never fails to disappoint in this movie, and it is probably one of his most finest roles ever, because he embraces the mythology around his real life counterpart and was praised for his uncanny resemblance to him by real party goers who met Jim Williams during his parties. You really have to be a hateful person to not appreciate the chemistry Cusack and Spacey share on screen. Actual persons related to the actual events appeared in the film; most notable Jerry Spence and Sonny Seiler who defended Jim Williams in the real trial. That alone, gives the movie an already settling atmosphere, even though some names and events have been changed for the sake of dramatization. Now, you can't hate this movie for its accuracy. Fact of the matter is, we love drama and we regard them as gems when they are done right. We love Sci-Fi movies, even though 90% of the happenings in the movie are not true. It's still a great movie, that doesn't need to follow the book because the city itself is surrounding by doubtful myths and occurrences. It strongly suggests that a lot of voodoo is practiced by certain people, including Williams himself, and the fact is, it is not so. Many people from Savannah are just as god-fearing as anyone and some even decry the rumors about it, but it adds flavor to the story, which in agreement, is very purposeful. Many characters in the movie leave you with a feeling of content because of how they were portrayed; Joe Odom and Lady Chablis being the most notable. They are supporting characters that made you wish they had more screen time or more development in their stories, hell, even a sequel but of course, that may be too much in this case. The party scenes look as lavish and ostentatious as you'd want. It really does not look as uptight as it would have you believe, for some of the characters display an outrageous and downright funny demeanor in their performances. It really has made me interested in visiting Savannah in all of its vintage glamour, but according to my own research and recent anecdotes, the atmosphere is now different. The movie was very well done and given the obvious anachronisms and factual errors, it is a charming and delightful piece of cinema that should be watched by all. It really meshed a nice touch of ambiguous comedy and grim outlook with some elegant performances and sarcastic cheerfulness. I have it on DVD and will watch it every once in awhile, just so I can soak up some of its magnetic visuals and become immersed in the story. I do that with video games sometimes too, especially if the story and gameplay is genuinely compelling. Im weird, I know. If you haven't watched this movie, do so. It is not a waste of time at all, because at the very worst, it is a interesting film that doesn't miss its mark even if you're not a fan of the genre.

StoryCharts Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil is about a small town trial about a murder that pits hard evidence against the prejudice of a community. In the end, the jury acquits the accused, but the accused also reveals that he had actually lied about the murder.I have a hard time figuring out the point (and genre) of the story. All along, we are pulled along to root for a court room drama that seems on path to being about overcoming small town prejudice to free an innocent man. But then at the end the man's innocence is put in question. So the resolution feels weird. The town is also weird (which seems to be a part of the story). The community is a closeted bunch of fruitcakes ruled by gossip and prejudice. The movie paints a vivid picture of the community's weirdness, but how does that serve the point of the story?I don't get it.And the genre is a little weird. If its a courtroom drama, then hard evidence should rule the day. If it's about the ambiguous nature of good and evil and the hidden powers of fate and voodoo on our lives, then fate and consequence should rule the day. I don't think you can mix them. The court room drama and hard evidence is what takes up screen time and pulls our attention forward, but then the climax switches the focus to the good/evil ambiguity and the sense that you get what you deserve by divine retribution. So we go along for one ride (Courtroom Drama) and finish on a different ride at the end (Good/Evil Contemplation/Fate). Makes me feel weird about the ticket I purchased at the beginning.A specific example is: the photographer took pictures of the crime scene and handed it to our protagonist. In a Courtroom Drama these types of actions should have consequences later (maybe he develops the film to find a clue). But it didn't happen. So the Genre is busted. We devoted a good portion of attention in the first half of the movie being sensitive to these clues in the story, but there is no payoff. So in the end we feel we have been duped and wrongly invested. One star for wasting my time.I think the Genre ambiguity might arise from the fact that this is a book adaptation. In the book medium, we can get inside the heads of the characters and try to make moral sense of the external actions. But it might not have translated so well in a movie.My Story Chart of the movie is at storycharts.ca