Truly Dreadful Film

Great Film overall

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

The theme of the film is both state of mind of the detective who is trying to solve two murder cases simultaneously and the cases themselves. If you like movies that question the way we perceive things and how they change due to our level of consciousness then this film is worth watching.

As an avid fan of the Dave Robicheaux novels, I consider "In the Electric Mist..." one of the weakest because it so busy with subplots and less-than-credible ghost sequences. Nevertheless, with a first rate director like Tavernier and a world class cast including Jones, Steenburgen and Goodman, I certainly expected greatness. But either the script writer totally failed at the critical task of sculpting out the excess and focusing the story lines into clear trajectories, or else the editor was pressured to deliver a 1 hour 40 minute film out of 3 hours of material. Whichever it was, the result is an engrossing mess. The performances, cinematography, and Cajun-noir atmosphere are intoxicating. But heaven forbid you try to understand the many story lines without having read the book. With so much plot crammed into a relatively short film, we are stuck with truncated scenes and an oddly staccato rhythm that makes for unsatisfying storytelling.I'm glad I watched it. The next Robicheaux book I read will be richer for the images of the bayou country and Jones's embodiment of Dave's complex, flawed character. But I'm frustrated by the thought of the film it could have been.

The major problem was the script, which was all over the place. Maybe editing would have helped, but I don't think that skillful editing would fix a fundamental script problem. What was the point? Which plot was the main plot? There were so many things going on: a 1965 racial murder, a current murder of a prostitute, alcoholics, and a film being made about the Civil War. I think that there was one character who was involved in both murders, and I finally realized that Peter Sarsgaard was playing Gen. Hood in the film being made.If this was supposed to be a mystery, there were too many distractions along the way as clues were being dispensed.The character of "the real" Gen. Hood and his interaction with Dave was awkward and sometimes confusing (i.e., the church scene).I think all of the "major" cast members did a fine job, though most were underutilized. Mary Steenburgen was way too good for the very little she was given to do. Ditto Ned Beatty. John Goodman was great at slimy menace, but his involvement in the plot was almost unnecessary.I believe that many of the local cast members could have been much, much better had they been told exactly what information they were supposed to be saying, and then be allowed to improvise. Perhaps this is a failure of direction rather than writing. In the film, too many characters sounded like they were reciting. It's true that they were not skilled actors, but local amateurs don't need to sound artificial, c.f., Beasts of the Southern Wild.Here are a few personal notes. The film was released in 2009, and I was not aware of it until today. I was born and raised in New Iberia, where the film is set (and where it was filmed), and the rest of my life has been spent in New Orleans. This film is probably the most extensive and best cinematic use of locations in Cajun Country. I could not pick out any scene which appeared to have been filmed on a sound stage. The film seems like a missed opportunity. I don't think the film had any significant pre-video release in the United States, and unfortunately, I can see why.

Dave Robicheaux is a no-nonsense detective(... why, yes, that is Tommy Lee Jones' role, however did you guess? He does fine with what he's given to work with, and is enjoyable to watch), simultaneously investigating a serial killer who targets prostitutes and a 1965 lynching, and gets advice from a long-dead Confederate general who only he can see(and he doubts that the officer is indeed real). I have not read the novel this is an adaptation of, but I feel confident in asserting that it was butchered in writing this screenplay(as often happens with this sort of thing, in various ways). This is just exactly a cohesive whole, and at times, it stops short of even that. The plot feels unresolved by the end of it, and the conclusion to the mystery doesn't satisfy(assigning someone the blame for a crime in a story like this isn't enough). Characters are introduced, do little, and are treated to next to no development. The only 93 minutes of running time tend to snail away. This does give a decent look into the environment of post-Katrina New Orleans, and the race relations. There's a bunch of weird stuff that I guess is either because of what was cut from the source material, or is a cultural thing, such as all the talking about producing films in the state. This can be somewhat exciting when it tries to be, which isn't often. There is a moderate amount of strong language and bloody, violent and disturbing content, as well as brief female topless nudity. I recommend this only to big fans of the deadpan Texan. 6/10