Permanent Midnight (1998) User Reviews

Well-done for what it is

[bluecrab22 · 7/10 · 1 August 2009]

Most of the drug-use scenes were fairly realistic. Been there and back myself, so to tell you the truth, nothing I saw in the movie made me wince, although there was a lot to relate to. There's a scene where - this really isn't a spoiler, given the context of the movie - where Jerry dumps some pills out of a prescription bottle, and they look exactly like the kind of pills they're supposed to be. Nice attention to detail. One thing that movies never quite get right or, perhaps like this one, simply choose to ignore, are the details of how one actually turns one's life around from being addicted to recovering, and this movie was no exception. We know in the beginning that Jerry has been through rehab, but that process itself, which may I say ain't exactly a cakewalk - and I mean you have to be clean before you can go through it, remains rather mysterious. Oh well, whatever, an interesting, entertaining movie that held my interest for its running time. Some usage scenes might be a bit upsetting to the non-anointed, although probably nothing quite so hard to take as in Requiem For A Dream.

Ben Stiller Takes a Good Dramatic Turn

[gbheron · 7/10 · 5 March 2003]

Poor little rich kid, Jerry Stahl, an actual TV screenwriter in 1980s Hollywood, p***es all his good fortune away through a hefty heroin habit. Jerry then hits bottom, recovers, and writes his autobiography. "Permanent Midnight" chronicles Jerry's fall from Hollywood hotshot to junkie bum. Besides such an unpleasant subject, and an equally unsympathetic main character, "Permanent Midnight" still entertains, in a morbid sort of way. It's told in flashback (at the beginning of the movie Jerry's just finished rehab and is about to return to his old LA haunts), so we kind of know where the movie will take us. There's no mystery, we're going to watch Jerry's self-destructive crash and burn in close-up. We're a little in the dark about what will happen after the movie catches up with itself, but there's really not a lot of tension. It's like watching a car wreck in very slow motion.

Ben Stiller does an excellent job portraying Jerry, with his craving for the drug rising above, and then destroying, all that's good in his life. It's quite a frightening portrayal. Elizabeth Hurley, as his girlfriend, is a bit of a stretch for both her acting talent and in the casting. But the rest of the cast does fine work. I think the major detriment to this movie is that the audience knows beforehand how it will all end. This is a very dramatic subject, but with no drama in the screenplay. And that is a drag.

Amazing performance by Stiller

[corvette94 · 6/10 · 3 April 2000]

Although the movie is uneven in both some performances and situations, it's worth watching Ben Stiller powerful characterization of Jerry Stahl. There are scenes very difficult to watch due to extreme use of drugs. It's not for the average audiences. If you like to see good acting this one is for you to watch

Smart black comedy with Ben Stiller's best performance to date.

[Infofreak · 21 August 2002]

I think Ben Stiller is one of the most talented comic actors currently working, even though he is often in awful movies (e.g. 'Zoolander', 'The Suburbans'). 'Permanent Midnight' is one of the best movies he has been involved with and features what is arguably his single finest performance. Based on the autobiography of TV hack writer Jerry Stahl, this is a smart, fresh and blackly humorous look at addiction and Hollywood. Stiller has a fine supporting cast here, especially his buddies and frequent co-stars Owen Wilson ('Bottle Rocket') and Janeane Garofolo ('Reality Bites'), the amazingly charismatic star-in-the-making Peter Greene ('Laws Of Gravity'), and comedy veteran Fred Willard ('Best In Show'), who all have small but memorable roles. Hell, even Liz Hurley and Cheryl Ladd are good in this, believe it or not. 'Permanent Midnight' was, like so many other good movies that don't pander to a mass audience, a box office flop, but will hopefully find a larger audience in years to come via video and DVD. I think it is one of the most underrated movies of the last ten years, and highly recommend it.

Stiller can Lead / Act

[caspian1978 · 7/10 · 12 February 2005]

Funny man Ben Stiller is more than just a comedian. Comedy is at many times, harder to capture than drama. American knows him as the funny and over the top actor who has made his "mark" in movies like There's Something About Mary and Meet the Parents. In Permanent Midnight, Still is still funny but also convincingly dramatic. Having to play the role of the Hollywood writer who is without passion, except for his drug habit, Stiller is amazing from beginning to end. Many of the Ben Stiller Show alumni return to do cameos including long time friend Owen Wilson. A great cast and a great story, the movie is enjoyable because there is no lying. This is an "In you face" true story. Stiller has no need to have to prove himself to Hollywood that he is a great actor who has faith in his craft.

What happened to Owen?

[emo775 · 6/10 · 1 January 2005]

I have just caught up with this movie on DVD. Stunning performance from Ben Stiller, but who decided to waste Owen Wilson ? The DVD Director's commentary indicates that he had specifically cast Wilson on the basis of his 'Bottle Rocket' performance, but then he seems to have had the better part of his performance cut. The DVD shows several extra schemes which include him and Stiller - all of which are great and really add to the story...in fact, without them, you get no feeling for their differing approach to the taking of drugs, how their friendship crashed and burned, nor how this further isolated the Stiller character. I particularly liked the (deleted) schemes where they bumbled into the party set up to be met by Elizabeth Hurley at her most glacial - acting like a couple of scolded kids- and the later one where Stiller is thrown out of Wilson's house for hitting on his girlfriend whilst under the influence. Adding in these scenes I would give it an overall 6 - without them, down to a 4...

drug addiction

[lee_eisenberg · 6/10 · 2 July 2005]

There have been many drug addiction movies: "A Panic in Needle Park", "Scarface", "Drugstore Cowboy", "Naked Lunch", "The Basketball Diaries", "Trainspotting", "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and now "Permanent Midnight". This last one features Ben Stiller as writer Jerry Stahl, who is battling heroin addiction. Throughout the movie, we follow Jerry around and see how the addiction is affecting his life and relationships. It was certainly worth seeing, but it didn't really show anything that we haven't seen before (granted, it wasn't weird like "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"). It's sort of weird to think that Ben Stiller in the same year went from a totally silly role in "There's Something About Mary" to this grim role. Oh well...

Probably the most inaccurate depiction of a heroin addiction ever.

[geoffrey_wright · 4/10 · 3 September 2015]

I was recommended this film by a friend, and after going through it and reviewing each particular scene...I'm not so sure that the actors or directors have done their research properly. This is a pretty poor depiction of heroin addiction and withdrawal.

Right when he uses in the first scene, he appears to have the symptoms of using meth. He's anxious, he's looking around nervously, etc. Not once did he fall out of consciousness or nod off. These are the symptoms of methamphetamine usage. During another scene, his bedside companion uses a substance on a vein in her inner thigh and immediately starts going into an orgasm. Also, a symptom of a methamphetamine induced "meth"-gasm.

During the scenes that he's using, he consistently goes into sweats and even one time at a party enters some kind of psychosis where he's hallucinating. Sweats occur during the withdrawal stage of addiction and hallucination does not ever occur unless mixed with another upper of some kind. Is he really using heroin? Until he starts using crack cocaine which can actually induce these symptoms that are depicted, each frame of mind that is displayed is the polar opposite of opiate-abuse.

Heroin induces involuntary dreaming, even happening mid-conversation where a user will "nod-off" in the middle of it. The case of _not_ having opiates in your bloodstream will actually give you flu-like symptoms. Instead, this film depicts the flu-like symptoms occurring during the time of the main character's usage of the substance which is terribly inaccurate.

Movies that depict opiate addiction and withdrawal accurately would be something such as BlackBird, Jesus' Son, or The Panic in Needle Park. This film unfortunately falls incredibly short of these other films in terms of accuracy. Other than these inaccuracies, the film is a fairly generic story of an addict losing control of his life. I probably wouldn't recommend this film to anybody.

My 2 hits... I mean cents

[awayfromthesun · 8/10 · 6 October 2002]

Probably one of the best movies about drugs that I've ever seen. An excellent performance by Ben Stiller in one of his most serious roles. If you want to see a movie that portrays the life-style associated with drugs accurately, watch this movie.

Compelling anti-drug propaganda

[matthewssilverhammer · 7/10 · 2 July 2020]

Stiller is stellar, and Wilson has never been better, in this compelling character study about the intermingling of entertainment and addiction. Much too simple to really stick to the ribs, but nonetheless an undeniable piece of convincing anti-drug propaganda.

Requiem for a Dream this is not!

[yossarian100 · 4/10 · 28 February 2004]

If you don't have a main character the audience can sympathize with, if you handle the photography as if you were rushing through a cheap television show, then having a great cast is irrelevant. About three quarters of the way through, I lost interest and turned it off. Requiem for a Dream this is not. Requiem, though very painful to watch, was quite creatively put together, with gut wrenching performances, and characters we could hope for, even though we knew all too well just where they were going. Permanent Midnight is boring and flat, more from technique than material. Too bad. I really like Ben Stiller but a good performance on his part just wasn't enough.

For Any Fan of Drug Films, Fast-Paced Stylized Biographies, and Ben Stiller

[jzappa · 8/10 · 31 January 2007]

Permanent Midnight seems at first like another film you will love. It's the story of a drug- addicted real-life semi-celebrity, it's directed with slick style and a fast pace, and it provokes emotion with its increasingly gloomy atmosphere and R-rated subject matter. The "but" or the "however" is hard to place, because there is no real reason why it can't live up to the expectations based on what I just described. The only real way to say why it isn't the contemporary classic or young moviegoer's classic that it should be is to say that it doesn't have as much intensity that one would expect from it. It allows itself to indulge in the formula elements of a movie like this.

There are formula elements to every genre and subgenre, even the fast-paced stylized biopic and the drug film, even though they don't seem like they would. Why would they? They're usually based on true stories and real lives, or they go in directions most other films don't take. Still, a real life and a true story can still either turn out the way so many similar ones do, or their adaptations do. Permanent Midnight is a formula film of its subgenre.

That doesn't stop it from being enjoyable and powerful on a substantial level. It's directed well and Stiller's performance is fantastic. It's loaded with dark humor, Scorsesian music placement and jump cuts disguised as techno music and fade outs, and attention-grabbing supporting players like Owen Wilson and Maria Bello. If only its storytelling took another avenue, or if only it were tighter and more extensive.

Ben Stiller stretching

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 17 September 2021]

Recovering addict Jerry Stahl (Ben Stiller) works a fast food drive thru window in the middle of nowhere. He gets picked up by Kitty (Maria Bello) who has drug issues of her own. They have motel sex and he recounts his drug story. He was a writer for a kiddie show in New York but decided to go to L. A. to get away from the drugs. It didn't work out as planned.

This is based on the autobiography of TV writer Jerry Stahl. It may be his real life but it's an all-too-familiar story. The flashback structure does not help the narrative drive. The opening already shows that he survived and is recovering. While it's commendable that Ben Stiller is willing to stretch his acting, I can't help but compare some of his more druggie work with some sort of comedic take on drug addiction. This is fine but there is nothing groundbreaking. Stiller gives a commendable performance and it is all generally fine.

read the book

[jeek · 5/10 · 11 April 1999]

I know that it is not always possible for Hollywood to make a faithful adaptation of a book, because of time restraints, budgets, etc., but David Veloz's version of Jerry Stahl's autobiography is a major disappointment. Veloz changes and/or leaves out so many interesting aspects of the book. For instance, Veloz fails to capture Stahl's wit and sense of humor, the cop DID NOT arrest Stahl when he pulled him over (Cop: "where you're at right now is worse than any place I can put you), the fact that Stahl wrote for "Moonlighting", "Playboy", his interview with director David Lynch for the chance to write for "Twin Peaks", etc, etc, etc,. I don't want to sound too cliched, but the book is much more interesting.

There's Something about Jerry (Stahl)

[d_fienberg · 16 May 2001]

First, let me apologize for the easy joke in the one line summary. It was simply too easy to pass up. And sometimes writers fall back on easy cliches, especially in headlines.

Actually, make that especially in headlines and in movies about substance abuse. Simply put, Permanent Midnight fails. And it doesn't fail because of the direction, or the writing, or the performances (thought there are certainly serious flaws with each), but because it doesn't have anything new to the discussion. Permanent Midnight on one hand is about the depths to which drugs can drive a man, but it's also about the superficiality of Hollywood. The problem is that neither angle has anything remotely original in it and so barring something remarkable in the execution, there's really no point in making the movie. Permanent Midnight, though, features many good things, but nothing remarkable enough to justify the "been there/ done that" feeling that remains when the narrative is finished.

Permanent Midnight features a framing story that feels made up. Since I haven't read Jerry Stahl's book of the same name, I cannot speak to the truth of the framing sequences which feature Maria Bello as an ex-drug addict named Kitty. I can only say how painfully convenient it is for recovering Jerry (Ben Stiller) to have this blond angel more than willing to hear his story of degradation. Not a moment between Jerry and Kitty rings true emotionally, but at least it gives writer/director David Veloz and entre into the story, not that the story actually goes anywhere. You see, when Jerry arrives in LA he's already a junkie, living with his friend Nickie (Owen Wilson), who's also already a junkie. He marries a British TV producer so that she can get her green card and she helps him get a television writing job. As shown in the film, there's nothing about his life that leads the the progression of his drug addiction. He just gets deeper and deeper and befriends shadier and shadier characters.

There's an arbitrary point at which he obviously decided to quit (since he's clean in the frame story), but by the time we get there, it seems so obvious and so unsatisfying as to make the journey feel wasted. No matter how bad things seems to get, the audience knows it could always be worse, because we've seen worse drug addictions in a dozen movies of varying qualities. Throughout the flashback, Jerry makes no real attempts at recovery and yet only falls to a certain level. He never makes it to hell. Nothing in the film has a payoff.

Much of the problem, then, is in Veloz's episodic screenplay. Characters wander in and out and nothing really comes together. Jerry seems strung-out, but he never seems horrible, so we can't really pity the people who trust him and love him because he doesn't really do any serious damage to them. Everything just comes and goes.

The film is filled with tiny "star" cameos which meet with only occasional success. Owen Wilson and Janeane Garofalo are always good to have around, as is the perpetually psychotic Peter Greene. Cheryl Ladd, Fred Willard, Andy Dick, and Connie Nielsen, though, provide uninteresting one shot encounters.

Veloz perhaps wisely avoids drug movie hallucination clichés. Aware that he lacks the visual sensibility to rival Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas or Trainspotting, he restricts his flourishes to a single drug nightmare and to boring New Wave-y jump cuts and the like. Veloz clearly sets the film up as Ben Stiller's show.

As Jerry Stahl, Stiller is never less than solid. He makes it clear why people would continue to trust Jerry even with all of his problems. The script, however, gives no indication of the genius that everybody attributed to Stahl, making it difficult to feel that the character is wasting his talent. Stiller, then, is fleetingly amusing, fleetingly harrowing, and always acting. When the character, in a moment of true desperation turns to his neck for an uncollapsed vein, it's Ben Stiller shooting up into his neck, not the character. It's tough to watch, but you feel for an actor on the edge, rather than a character.

So people in Hollywood are so self-absorbed that they don't notice what's going on around them. OK. I've seen that before. And amidst all that egomania, people with problems are allowed to fall through the cracks. And I've seen that before. And recovery is possible? In a one-day-at-a-time way? I've seen that before as well. I kept waiting for Permanent Midnight to offer me something new and different. But it was only more of the same. There's enough good there for a 5/10.

Terrifyng slope on the hell of a lost soul in his pain

[[e-mail] · 7/10 · 2 February 2003]

The movie narrate the true story of Jerry Stahl,a Hollywood tv writer slave of heroin,but not because he would "unpack",but for stop to feeling bad.At first sight Jerry Stahl seems a normal gay guy ,but if you looking better you can see a dark shadow in his personality , a dark shadow where grow up his ghost's pain,that it change in destruction of himself.A pain in appearence inexplicable,but always present.Ben Stiller is very good in the character of Jerry Stahl,and his decline phisical and psychic is worthy to biggest drama hollywood actors.I admite Stiller,but he is remember from a pubblic only for less movie,as "There's something about Mary",that it's not a bad movie,but neither a deeply movie as "Permanent Midnight".This story may report to the story of John Belushi,but the movie that it narrate"Wired" not is very succesful.My rate is 7.

Powerful Ben Stiller Performance

[bakergarrett · 7/10 · 14 May 2022]

The man who brought you Zoolander and Tropic Thunder, acts the hell out this flick. Ben stiller is magnetic on screen as junkie writer in Hollywood. His portrayal is realistic and bold, and he really puts himself out there. This will go down as one of Ben Stiller's best acting.

Unfortunately the writing in the romantic subplot of the film isn't very great or believable, it's still watchable for sure due to Ben Stiller's work but these scenes can be a slog.

I found the rest of the movie great, luckily and if you are into powerful performances, than check this out.

A surprisingly good movie.

[Dave-430 · 7/10 · 26 September 1999]

I was surprised at how interesting the story of a junkie loser can be. Ben Stiller does a great job as the main character and Peter Greene is a pleasure to watch as usual. Funny and tragic at the same time. I give this one seven out of ten.

well-meaning, but truly awful *vanity project*. . .

[gregory.mitchell · 2/10 · 18 July 2000]

I know Ben Stiller was trying to do the right thing here - his performance shows it. He plays a great junkie, and it's very convincing.

UNFORTUNATELY, the rest of the film is PURE garbage. Period. Maria Bello is a fine actress - but her part is ALL WRONG. Allow me to wonder out loud - ANYONE READ THE G**DAMN BOOK? Jerry Stahl led a pitiful existence - both as a junkie and a TV writer (the joke is, of course, which is worse?)- but his book was totally BUTCHERED.

Which, going back to Stiller, is a shame; Ben put a lot into the acting - but who was asleep at the wheel on the REST of the production? Stiller meant well by getting the project off the ground, but it's a TERRIBLE shame that the book will have to battle and outlive this pile of rubbish.

brilliant

[strauss12 · 9/10 · 16 April 2002]

I love this movie. I've probably seen it at least 10 times. The last time I saw it, I was at the Red Cross donating platelets. The process takes up to 2 hours, and they let you bring in a movie to watch while you lie motionless in the donor chair. Imagine watching this film with fat needles stuck in BOTH of your arms . . .

Yes, this movie is choppy. Yes, this movie is uneven. But it all seems completely appropriate. None of that interfered with my total immersion into this gritty, stylish, and dark tale. Ben Stiller is absolutely fantastic. I found his performance very convincing. I think the best dramatic actors are those who came up through the avenues of comedy ("funny comes from a sad place"). Jim Carrey and Robin Williams are further proof of this -- no one can cry on cue like these guys.

Add in other terrific performances by Owen Wilson, Janeane Garofalo, Fred Willard, Peter Greene, Sheryl Ladd, Andy Dick, Charlie Fleischer, and even Jerry Stahl. There were some really shocking scenes in this film, especially the crack smoking scene where they jumped against the plate glass windows. Great film.

Mixed Feelings

[mitches · 6/10 · 23 January 2001]

When this was released in the States there was a huge fuss over Ben Stiller not getting an Oscar nomination. I've waited two years to see what the fuss was about and although Stiller is very good, the film as a whole is pretty mediocre. A fine supporting cast is mostly wasted. Which in the cases of Owen Wilson & Janeane Garofalo is a crime. Stahl is not a very sympathetic character and any depth of motivation is merely hinted at and throughout the film you get the feeling you're in real life TV movie-land.

Not Bad, Not Good, Not Really Anything...

[EdYerkeRobins · 5/10 · 25 December 2001]

I think Ben Stiller is typecast; I've only seen him play quirky Jewish guys in comedies. He's quite good at that (because that's basically what he is), but I was very interested to see him in a serious role, so I rented this film. Unfortunately, the film is unevenly paced and rather humdrum.

The film's pace is really off, because it tries to cram at least a year and a half's worth of events into 80 minutes. The story is told in segments, meaning the film jumps around a lot; Jerry (Stiller) switches dealers and loses friends out of the blue, but more importantly, the entire period between when he is in rehab and when the film begins is alluded to but is noticeably absent (how and why DID he come to that "fateful" fast food job?). The film focuses mainly on the beginning of Jerry's downfall due to addiction, but never tells the whole story (he never seems to hit addiction's true rock bottom). The segway between these sequences - Jerry telling another ex-addict more of his "story", should've been done away with; its totally unnecessary and serves only to lead to an ending that makes little sense, even within the context of the segways.

Besides all the missing sequences leaving gaping and occasionally confusing holes in the story, the story left isn't terribly interesting. The "drugs cause successful man to become a desperate shadow of his former self" plot is second only to the "Hollywood doesn't give a damn about anyone" subplot in its simplicity. It's been done before, and if it hasn't, it sure seems like it has, including the "telling the story to another sympathetic ex-addict" aspect. Perhaps including some of the aforementioned missing segments would have given the story the extra kick it needed.

The story is the only problem with the film, the performances are excellent. Stiller is just as good in a dramatic role (although, somewhat ironically, his character is a quirky Jewish addict), and Elizabeth Hurley gives an excellent supporting performance as Jerry's marriage-of-convenience-wife who actually cares about him, but gets the fall-back from his addiction instead (her response to these incidents is only hinted at, and should have been extended on). Janeane Garofalo is another great supporting character (Jerry's agent) that deserved more screen time. Besides sporting great performances, there are a few inspired scenes, though due to the story's disjointed order, they feel just as "dropped in" as the rest of the story's major developments.

There's nothing outright wrong with the film, it's just missing too much. If the film had run for the length of a regular film it probably would've filled in enough of the holes that it'd work better.

Engaging performances a privilege to watch

[phosphor-2 · 10/10 · 14 April 2006]

I saw it once before, years ago, and it left an indelible impression on me. I watched it again just ten minutes ago, and I am confirmed in my praise.

The performances are tops, the story dark but very funny - and factual - based on Jerry Stahl's book of the same name. Jerry Stahl is played by Ben Stiller in his most challenging yet most convincing role to date. It's a real privilege to watch such a performance.

Mind you, I'm not exactly Ben Stiller's biggest fan (to be fair, I have enjoyed a few of his films), and Jerry Stahl was the writer of the TV show ALF; while that could have been a turn-off for me, it wasn't. Sure, there have been some moralizing, vanilla critics who couldn't stomach the overabundance of drug abuse depicted, but I really think too many of them found it hard to rate the film objectively due to what they took as an affront to their precious sensitivities. Which is not to say this film didn't get its share of raving reviews. It's a black comedy, an incomprehensibly strange creature for some, but a true friend to others.

If you're smarter than most people, and you can take your entertainment black, see this one.

Interesting, but not very appealing

[PersianPlaya408 · 7/10 · 28 April 2003]

Permanent Midnight,First-Viewing, owned pirated DVD,(David Veloz)- Ben Stiller, Elizabeth Hurley, Maria Bello, Janeane Garafalo, Owen Wilson

An interesting true story of a TV writer (Stiller) who's heroin addiction causes him to go from a successful TV writer to working at McDonald's. This is David Veloz's directorial debut, and only film for that matter (watch this film and you will know why). The directing is not professional, and the transition between past and present is almost impossible to recognize, (is he telling us its not important?). Stiller gives a relatively good performance, didn't think he could handle a serious role like this, he wasn't bad, atlhough not great, as the script was pretty boring. The rest of the cast are OK, Owen Wilson is probably the stand-out, as Stiller's best friend. Overall, the screenplay was boring, the direction was not good, and the cast was convincing but not that great since the roles were pretty dull. It could have been much better, had someone like Charlie Kaufman wrote it (he wrote the amazing script for the story of Chuck Barris, a game show host in George Clooney's 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind'. 7/10

Pretentious "Oh woe is me" junkie trash

[shark-43 · 2/10 · 25 July 2000]

Man, Ben Stiller blew it on this one. He usually has fairly good taste when it comes to choosing projects (well, there is Cable Guy....) But, he is so good in Flirting With Disaster and his comedic work on his own Fox TV show was stupendous, but I guess he saw it as a chance to ACT. But the screenplay and direction are so heavy-handed and choppy that the movie leaves you cold. ooooh, look at me - I was such a junkie I shot up in the Maternity Ward. I took my baby on a drug buy!!! Wow - Jerry Springer fodder, but it does not make for an involving movie. Jerry Stahl actually HELPED his damaged career by admitting what a terrible drug addict he was. ONLY in Hollywood. Now that's his gimmick - I was really screwed up on drugs. Hire me. Completely overrated and from what I hear, NOT sober anymore anyway. Plus the film's decision to wrap around the story with Stiller meeting the crazy and wild sober chick is like a bad one-act with two people stuck in a motel room. Want to be devastated by addiction??? Watch Leaving Las Vegas or Trainspotting. This movie is awful.