I hate this movie. It's terrible to begin with. For some reason Cusac thought he should act with his mouth open (once again he proves to perform only in the worst movies), the Minerva character was so stereotypical and hard to watch not even talking about the Lady Chablis way too long (and enormously annoying) part. Then again in the middle of this crap most characters turn out to be gay.
On the other hand Kevin Spacey was good as always.
You know this is a true story, right? The characters are based on real people. Look it up.
shareI do know that, maybe they just shouldn't have made the movie at all. But I was mostly annoyed by the manlady and that crazy fat voodoo woman.
shareI agree with K.K., this was a terrible movie. I love Cusack & Spacey, but this movie meandered, it didn't know if it was a comedy or a drama or a mystery or what. Most times it's great in a movie if they show all these elements, but they usually do at the same time, this movie seemed to separate them. Cusacks character was a fairly "straight man", yet during the utterly ridiculous scene where he's transfering Spacey's calls from jail, Cusack is busting a gut laughing at the inmate howling. This scene, along with several others, felt out of place, like they had half a movie & filled the other half with random, un-matching scenes.
shareExactly how I felt about this, a real mess of a movie.
shareI would really like to admire "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" beyond Kevin Spacey's wonderful performance and the photography of Savannah, Georgia. The book is one of my favorites and I was disappointed in the film. The writers (one of whom was Mr. Berendt) seemed to have a problem portraying the whimsical nature of the source material, and unfortunately so does Mr. Eastwood. As written, the character played by John Cusack doesn't have much texture and unfortunately there are way too many scenes of Mr. Cusack reacting to Savannah's citizens' eccentricities with mouth agape. Perhaps this is why the character played by Allison Eastwood was added to the film.(?) Clint Eastwood is almost always a very skilled director with actors; not sure what occurred with Mr. Cusack. I agree with the comment made by bill9340 concerning the scene concerning a conference call made in - and outside of - prison. Eastwood plays it for laughs. Perhaps this should have been left in the blooper reel.
share[deleted]
Unfortunately I have
share[deleted]
triple, i agree you with you that the best part was the opening credits. i have never viewed a movie with a flabbier plot. it struck me mostly as a savannah tourism piece complete with slice-of-life vignettes interrupted occasionally with the incidentals of the plot that justified it as a movie. sure, eastwood wanted savannah to be a prominent fixture in the movie, but 2 hours and 35 minutes of excruciating slowness is a bit much!
"....a lady always knows when to leave."
Fried Green Tomatoes
[deleted]
"I'm just not sure where he went wrong on MIDNIGHT... Too much Lady Chablis, perhaps? The Cusack character not working? Jude Law miscast? The overall tone? All of the above? "
all of the above
[deleted]
[deleted]
It wasn't that bad of a movie! Sure it was a bit long and slow-moving, but the characters were eccentric enough to keep my interest (especially the tranny, lol) and it made for an interesting 2.5 hours.
In my verdict, it wasn't terrible, but it wasn't all that great. I gave it a 7/10.
I said I never had much use for one....never said I didn't know how to use it.
Hell,I just zipped through it to see Bob Gunton...
:D
Marry me,Bob Gunton!
My take on it is that the original intent was to start with a view of proper, gentile southern grace, then to begin peeling back layers to expose an underlying meanness and seeminess - all that glitters in the southern constellation is not gold nor stars above.
I like the movie for exactly the weirdness of the characters, to me, if it is plot that matters then this ain't your cup of tea. Notice the contrasts in texture, night vs. day scenes for instance, like two worlds juxtaposed. The drinking, partying, the polished glamor of night gives way to the harsh light of the next day. Noble friends in the dark become scarce when the ugliness of this reality begins to emerge. But this is the South. The tempest will be subdued soon, and the truth is an inconvenience to be given back seat to the facade of proper society - if possible.
I agree. It was certainly not a "Malpaso Masterpiece" so to speak, but it was good enough. I wanted to give it a 7.5, thought 7.0 was a hair low, so I gave it an 8.0 to compensate for the knuckleheads that have pre-conceived notions, stereotypes and biases that this film did not supply for them. 😉
Eastwood is a better director than an actor, this I feel is because he is/was studio trained and not stage trained. It's also why IMO his acting range is somewhat limited. OTOH, he observed and 'took notes' from Sergio Leone and Don Siegel, the directors he most tries to emulate. He goes for the visual in his directing style and lets the actors play the part as the part reveals itself to them. He will also do a visual with a healthy dose of 'tongue in cheek' which he does with the car doors opening in the scene prior to the ladies meeting for cards. This was obviously misconstrued as an attempt at comedy, but I feel instead was just filmed for the audience benefit hoping they would get a chuckle. I did.
One commenter said they felt the proper vehicle for this story would be a mini-series, and I agree...but those went out of style in the '80s. Why do you think the movie is 2 hours and 35 minutes?
Spacy is fantastic and to a lesser extent so is Cusack. But I will add that this movie needed a dialect coach to sharpen up the phony southern accents. Lady Chablis because she is a native is one of the few who nailed the accent.
It's a tad slow in developing but shortly before halfway it settles into a nice pace. This is a good movie when judged on it's own merits.
I wanted to give it a 7.5, thought 7.0 was a hair low, so I gave it an 8.0 to compensate for the knuckleheads that have pre-conceived notions, stereotypes and biases that this film did not supply for them.
With reasons you provide for this being the worst movie you've ever seen, I wonder if you ever seen anything except Julie Andrews musicals.
If you don't like the movie, that's your business but really, the "worst you've ever seen"? And most of the characters are gay? I think you really didn't see this at all but just heard there were some bisexuals in the film and decided it must be the worst.
Don't twist my words! I never said it was the WORST, I said it to be one of the worst because it certainly in my opinion is one of the worst movies I've seen. I don't have a problem with gays, but in this film it seemed like everyone turned out to be gay - it was rather strange than annoying, more unnecessary than anything else.
shareI don't have a problem with gays, but in this film it seemed like everyone turned out to be gay - it was rather strange than annoying, more unnecessary than anything else.
Yes I agree, best film I ever seen and sadly never receive any Oscars was Police Academy films and also Transformers films.
I dont understand why they make this kind of films? What everybody need to see for entertainment pair ot tits jumping up and down and thats it.
It's not bad, but it's definitely not good either.
I liked thoes endless weirdos who live in the town, but nothing was going on! I was bored to death.
Great atmosphere, great characters, nothing happens.
Oh, it's bad. No atmosphere, lousy characters.
--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA
It's pretty mediocre. I did like it better on second viewing, and I liked the book much better than the movie.
share[deleted]