mark.waltz That's how Broadway veteran Dorothy Loudon describes the powerful, well respected character played by Kevin Spacey, in jail awaiting trial for killing a drunken hustler. The victim allegedly threatened to kill Spacey, and now Town and Country reporter John Cusack (who simply came to Savannah to do a story on the local architecture) struggles to find out the truth. That old fashioned southern hospitality gets him into many high society houses, intermingling with a variety of eccentrics) and a transgendered drag performer (Lady Chablis) who knew the victim "extremely well".While strange in spots and fascinating in others, this doesn't completely strike the same cord for me that "The Crying Game", yet offers some great performances in unusual characterizations. Spacey, facing scandalous charges in his current life, parallels that ironically 20 years before, and no house of cards can survive this metaphor of a messy 52 Card Pickup. Cusack us good, not outstanding, and Dorothy Loudon plays a southern version of Auntie Mame that gives her some witty lines. Less memorable is Lady Chablis who over deadpans each of her lines and seems to be spending more on shock value than creating a transgender character minus stereotypes. I would have liked to have seen more of the chanting homeless woman played by Irma P. Hall. Other characters are in introduced but quickly disappear. The conservative Southern city seems far too open minded (or possibly enjoying the scandal) to be believable. An amusing moment has Lady Chablis crashing a ball for Southern black debutantes, with the nerdy young black man completely unaware that he's dancing with a transgender, a bit daring for its day. As directed by Clint Eastwood, this crosses some new lines, but often they are too blurred even when wrapped up in a colorful package.

MartinHafer I have had friends tell me that the book "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" is fantastic...better than the book. And, apparently, film reviewers felt the same way...that the movie was a bit of a disappointment. Well, I've never read the book and have no idea if this is the case...but I did enjoy the movie.Now before I talk about that, I must talk about the actual case. Yes, this film is based on a read murder case that was tried (four times) and ultimately resulted in....well, I don't want to spoil the suspense. John Berendt wrote the book about this famous case and instead of making it a standard non-fiction book, wrote it in a narrative fashion that seemed almost like fiction. Now this is important to me, because I can guarantee that much of what I saw in the film was, at the very least, an exaggeration...as no town, not even Savannah, is that weird and I put little credence in the doings of voodoo priest and men who walk non-existent dogs and a guy who wears live bugs on strings about his head. Surely at least SOME of what was in the film (and book) was fiction or at least exaggeration!!The story revolves around a writer, John Kelso (John Cusack). Why he was re-named Kelso and they didn't just say it was John Berendt is odd...and, odder still, that they added a female romantic interest when Berendt was gay! I don't think it's completely a case of white- washing, as several characters in the film were gay and a prominent character, Lady Chablis (played by herself), was a trans-gendered individual.Regardless of this, the story supposedly involved him getting to know the killer before, during and after the case. I assume this was fictionalized by Berendt and/or the filmmakers. Again, regardless, the film is about the ensuing trial and the MANY weirdos John Kelso encounters as he stays in town and watches the events unfold.I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I was surprised when I read that some folks found the film confusing...I thought it all made sense and worked. But the only apprehension I have is that it left me wanting to know the truth of the story...without the embellishments. Well worth seeing and NEVER dull...especially when Chablis was in the film....that is truly memorable!!!

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.

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