The Superbit titles utilize a special high bit rate digital encoding process which optimizes video quality while offering a choice of both DTS and Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. These titles have been produced by a team of Sony Pictures Digital Studios video, sound and mastering engineers and comes housed in a special package complete with a 4 page booklet that contains technical information on the Superbit process. By reallocating space on the disc normally used for value-added content, Superbit DVDs can be encoded at double their normal bit rate while maintaining full compatibility with the DVD video format.
1 Great chance that works
Gutsy, original screenplay. I love finding the powerful and productive intelligence in a person normally stereotyped as a no-nothing redneck. Another great choice by Cage, who as in Matchstick Men, has chosen an unconventional yet rewarding role.
One of the best films of the decade.
2 "Jumps the alligator" early and goes downhill fast
Oh boy, so much of this movie is so wrong. From the overheated casting (Nicolas Cage and Meryl Streep) to the destructive and cynical plot, "Adaptation" is a director's star turn that falls flat on its face. What happened to the cool detachment and finely-drawn characters of "Being John Malkovich"? Sorry, Charlie, but your own writers-block is never good material for a film, especially when it turns out this overplayed and underwritten. Chris Cooper is easily the best thing in this movie (no front teeth to chew the scenery with...) and the Florida Everglades never looked so beautiful. A very unfunny movie that's capsized by its own smug attitude.
3 No one plays 'the blonde with a dark side' better...
...than Streep. Witness this role, Sophie's Choice, Klute (oh, that wasn't her). This is really about Charlie Kaufman's monumental case of writer's block and his need to make a snorefest novel about orchids of all things into a screenplay. He wants to do the novel justice but his dark side (a duo role played by Cage)--his brother thinks he just oughtta go for the Die Hard audience. (In a similarly veined Coen brothers flick, the writer blocked screen scriber has a run in with who we can only say is the devil personified)...'the brothers' take a trip or two trying to cull any morsel of interesting item from Streep's novel and her personality. Sooner or later they run smack into the misanthropic toothless orchid hunter who's been turning her onto the mysterious orchids extracts. Chris Cooper gets a role he can sink his teeth into and Streep sends more postcards from the edge. Easily this is a show that requires more than one viewing to capture it's shadings and subtleties. When you do watch it, have some wine along wit'cha.
4 Iraqi writer living in Los Angeles from 2002
For arabic readers , you can read my review of this great movie in my page :
http://www.rezgar.com/m.asp?i=435
5 Brilliant??
It's funny how often people use the word brilliant when describing this movie. It is not a word that you hear very often in reference to a movie and when you do the movie being described usually doesn't deserve it. This is a rare exception to that, it is a brilliant, brilliant movie. Another amazing script from the now Academy Award winning Charlie Kaufman, directed beautifully by the future Academy Award winning Spike Jonze. In my opinion these two aer just about the best people working in Hollywood today. Both movies they have teamed up on blew me away, and I can hardly wait for their next masterpiece.
There is really nothing else to say about this movie. If you have seen it you know what I am talking about, and if you haven't you need to.
6 Strangest adaptation ever. Don't miss it.
This is really clever, and really funny. Smartly funny, though, so pay attention while watching! What's really cool is that when this movie degenerates into a mindless action fest in its last act or so, instead of getting disgusted you laugh out loud. That is, you laugh if you get the joke. The joke being that this movie is two things: 1) an offbeat comic piece about a neurotic screenwriter tring to adapt into a film a basically non-adaptable book (a rumination on orchids, no less!), and 2) the actual end result of the screenwriter's attempts to try ANYTHING to deliver his screenplay on deadline (in other words, the movie we're seeing is the one our screenwriter friend finally wrote, complete with all the cheesy by-the-numbers action cliches he reluctantly added to the mix to get the darn thing to hold together). Other metaphors and themes abound, too, often touching on (surprise, surprise) the role of adaptation in life in order to survive and and get ahead. Finally, Cage, Cooper, and Streep are all great here, delivering naturalistic performances that nevertheless result in striking, original characters.
7 What took me so long?
I loved Being John Malkovich and so I don't know why it took me so long to see this wonderful movie. Adaptation is hard to put into words, but it was done by the same director (Spike Jonze) and same screenwriter (Charlie Kaufman). Kaufman also wrote Eternal Sunshine for the Spotless Mind, which I liked, but did not love, like BJM and Adaptation. Maybe b/c it had Carrey in a more serious role, which I do not like as much as his comedic roles. This is the kind of movie that makes you want to find out more, and more and more. Like how much of the movie is true based on Susan Orlean's book The Orchid Thief? How much is based on Kaufman's real life? I now want to read The Orchid Thief and find out more about everyone involved, especially Charlie Kaufman. Meryl Streep and Nicholas Cage do a superb acting job, as well as, Chris Cooper as John Laroche. If you liked BJM you will love this movie. If you didn't like it or didn't get it, don't bother with this one. Also, if you liked Eternal Sunshine, you will probably also like it, and if you haven't seen any, I would start with BJM, and then either Eternal or Adaptation. But definately watch BJM before this movie. This is an excellent movie to watch over and over and get some of the subtle nuances, also I highly recommend watching it with someone so you can discuss afterwards. Unfortunately, my husband hated BJM so I watched this alone, and now need to talk to my friends who have seen it!
8 it was okay
some parts of it were funny. i fell asleep so i had to watch it in two separate viewings. a different "tradition of storytelling."
9 A joyous, unique treat!
I just finished watching this terrific movie again. ADAPTATION is truly one of those movies that actually grows richer upon a second viewing. The first time I saw it, I was blown away by the fantastic acting and enjoyed trying to follow the dynamics of the movies. I say "dynamics" rather than twists and turns, because on the surface, there are no twists. The movie just unspools "realistically" with a generous dose of carefully labeled flashbacks. But underneath, what we're really seeing is a movie that "twists" from straightforward storytelling to a movie that may actually be the playing out of the screenplay that is being written (which is what the movie is about).
Nicolas Cage plays Charles Kaufman, the screenwriter for BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, who has just been hired to write an adaptation of the bestselling THE ORCHID THIEF by Susan Orlean. Of course, the fun begins right there, because this movie is written by Charles Kaufman, who actually WAS hired to adapt THE ORCHID THIEF. Charles is a deeply neurotic and insecure person, prone to flop-sweats and bouts of either shyness or manic babbling. His internal dialogue, which we share from time to time, is a masterpiece of self-flaggelation. Charles lives with his twin brother Donald (also Cage), a sweet, simple person who idolizes the work Charles has done and also lives much more in the real world. Of course, Donald DOESN'T exist in our world. In the movie, we see how Charles becomes incapable of writing a screen play of Orlean's book, because he admires it so much, because it probably isn't ideal for a movie treatment and because Charles develops a fixation for Orleans (Meryl Streep).
From there we are shown glimpses of the story of THE ORCHID THIEF (Chris Cooper, Oscar-winner), how the man was arrested for poaching rare orchids in the swamps of Florida, and how his little story attracted reported Orlean, who went to interview the man and spent enough time with him to develop an entire book.
But as the movie progresses, the line between the "real" world and how Charles Kaufmann is beginning to reimagine Orlean's relationship with The Orchid Thief (La Rouche is his name). But there is never a clear demarcation showing when this spin into fantasy land is starting. But Orlean's adventures become more and more outrageous (an affair with LaRouche, drug use, etc.) that are blatant fictions.
And why does Charles fabricate fictional plot twists for his non-fiction screenplay. First, because his brother Donald has just out of the blue written a non-sensical action movie that has yield him a big contract and because Charles has attended (unwillingly) a screenwriting workshop and has clearly been influenced by all the "formula" he's being exhorted to incorporate into his work. His screenplay starts out as an exploration of the simple joy of loving flowers and becomes a silly action-flick.
But what's so fun about ADAPTATION is that we get to experience not only Charles difficulty in imagining a screenplay adaptation of THE ORCHID THIEF, but we get to SEE the story play out alongside it. It's three movies in one: the telling of the story of THE ORCHID THIEF, as written by Susan Orlean [by the way, there is one scene, not fiction, where LaRoche and his family are in a car accident that changes his life. It's undeniably one of the most gut-wrenchingly realistic car crashes ever put on screen. 10 seconds of film seared into your mind forever.], the telling of how a screenwriter named Charles Kaufman couldn't come up with a way to adapt the book and a totally fictional story of THE ORCHID THIEF and the screenwriter's twin brother. But they are totally intertwined. It sounds confusing, but the joy of this piece also lies in how clearly we follow it. At least, a halfway intelligent and attentive viewer will follow. This is not a wacky, slapstick movie. It's clever, smart and totally original. It's also very adult, and is meant for film viewers with some experience with watching and appreciating film.
Let me also say that Nicolas Cage gives one of his two or three best performances of all time (Oscar nominated). Meryl Streep (Oscar nominated) is sheer delight, reminding us that she must not be taken for granted...that she is totally able to play a real, flesh and blood American woman with no accent, and make her completely delightful. Chris Cooper deserved his Oscar win for his daring performance, which mixes lunacy and tragedy into one unique character. Everyone else gives very able support, especially Brian Cox as the screenwriting workshop leader. Here's a guy who simply cannot give less than a commanding performance, however small the role.
So, I very much recommend this most unique, funny, moving and well-presented film!
10 The Amazing Peebs
I quite simply loved this movie it is perfect and unique and every time i watch it i see more and more of its beauty
11 Even better than advertised
Alright, let's just get the honorifics out of the way right now: Adaptation is as smart as Election, as endearing as Rushmore, and as original as, well, anything I've ever seen all at the same time. It's a testament to how much a clever idea can make a movie, but it has a lot more going for it that that. Screenwriter Charlie Kaufman has written himself into a movie about writing himself into a movie, and if that sounds like a pretentious idea it's because it is. But at the same time, Adaptation more than holds its own in the areas of wit, characterization, and plot development. Its concept is decidedly highbrow and unquestionably outlandish, but at the same time Adaptation is a boldly unconventional, relentlessly unpredictable, and unapologetically quirky movie.
So, what exactly is Adaptation about? Well, here's a partial list: creativity, self-loathing, emotional attachment, forbidden love, fraternal relations, the movie industry drug use, and last but not least, flowers. Of course, that's not all it's about, either, as there is a plot holding everything together. Adaptation mainly centers around Charlie Kaufman's attempts to adapt Susan Orleans's book The Orchid Thief into a movie while simultaneously trying to tune out his twin brother Donald as Donald attempts to write a screenplay of his own. After some, er, questionable decisions in recent years (Gone In 60 Seconds, anyone?), Nicolas Cage apparently once again finds his niche here, pulling off the difficult task of portaying the polar opposites of the tormented artiste Charlie and the charming hack Donald in a dual role that has an awful lot to say about the nature of creative genius. The rest of the movie notwithstanding, Charlie's frenetic inner monologue alone is practically worth the price of admission.
That said, there's plenty more going on in this movie, well more than can be easily encapsulated in a simple review. Constantly leaping back and forth in time and blurring the line between fiction and reality until it's difficult to tell which is which, Adaptation is considerably more challenging than even Kaufman's latest effort, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which wasn't exactly an easy watch itself. Various plots are juggled in a seemingly haphazard manner, but seeing them all come together in the end makes for much of the fun of watching. More to the point, the movie never sacrificies emotional depth or humor for the sake of cleverness, largely avoiding the self-congratulatory air that has doomed so many lesser movies of its ilk (this means you, Lost in Translation). It certainly doesn't hurt that there are startingly authentic performances from skilled actors like Merryl Streep, Chris Cooper, and Bryan Cox on display, or that the insanely adorable Maggie Gyllenhaal is around in a minor role.
Now, before I take my leave I should stress that Adaptation is most certainly not a movie for everyone. If you favor movies with conventional storylines, fast-paced plots, or lots of action, you probably will not like this one. But, if you're in the mood for something different, Adaptation should not be missed. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is worth checking out as well.
12 surprisingly disappointing
"Being John Malkovich" was a wacky and off-beat film. I have screened it many times. I eagerly anticipated similar joy from Adaptation, given the same director and screenwriter.
Poachers - in the maze-like Florida Everglades swamp. After plants? Flowers? Whoa, this could be interesting!
The film purports to be an "adaptation" of a novel called The Orchid Thief. The novel chronicles the legal and seemingly environmentally-motivated struggle of a flower poacher who "doesn't touch" the flowers (Native Americans - Seminole Indians, apparently, are permitted to harvest them, under the guise of "religious rituals" - and also seem to be employed by the poacher). The object of attention is a rare "ghost" orchid, and the real reason for harvesting them (which I won't reveal) emerges in the closing act of the film...
Adaptation's best performance was delivered by Chris Cooper, as the poacher. He's practically unrecognizable (compared to other recent film appearances) as an intellectual, charming, and tragically (as explained in the film) toothless, incongruously mop-haired, redneck horticulturist.
Meryl Streep's performance is as expected. Good but robotic... There is a weird bit showing her partially nude torso on a porno website (the poacher's later vocation). As genuine as the magazine cover photo of Julia Roberts with the pasted-in photoshopped head.
Nicholas ("Nicky Coppola") Cage overdoes his take on socially-compromised professional screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, identical twin of "still finding myself" brother Donald. Is Kaufman really that neurotic? More? Who bloody cares? Nowadays, everyone knows someone as crazy as this.
On the other hand, I laughed out loud at some of Donald's antics, providing an absurd focus to Charlie's astringent behavior. Donald's character was more aligned with Cage's presence, as Charlie's screen doppelganger. Donald was hilariously deluded and irrational (yet sane in a Hollywood - or perhaps even everyday - context). By contrast, Charlie was introverted and cynical (even doubting his own sanity, in light of Donald's unaccountable success as a formulaic, by-the-book screenwriter).
The mantra of Adaptation was "know your genre." What's the genre? "Movie - within - a movie" has been done numerous times, not often with success. "Malkovich" provided a creative twist (as "person - within - a - person"). The protagonist in Malkovich was a struggling puppeteer who was rightfully derided as a boring sot, by other characters in the film. And we expect that a screenwriter, by contrast, has an interesting life? Perhaps the parable is that the story portrayed by The Orchid Thief is more boring than the life of a screenwriter. Making Kaufman, by extension, interesting?
As the film's final scenes played out, a glimmer of salvation emerged. Could it be that The Orchid Thief, as a novel, was an ingenious, fictional construct, created (in the "Real Screenwriter Kaufman's" imagination) expressly for the purposes of the film? Within this fiction, the protagonist injects drama to recussitate his flailing adaptation of the novel, by surreptitiously discovering the grim secret hidden by the book's author. Unfortunately, this hope was extinguished on discovering the truth - The Orchid Thief is a published novel.
After seeing this film, I don't care to read The Real Orchid Thief. (Is this a cynically planned, and therefore ironic - in Charlie Kaufman's eyes - film / book tie-in? Does the film studio profit from increased book sales, etc... ) Anyone who is interested in a different, and similarly illuminating take on Hollywood screenwriters, and which might have inspired this effort (without a "happy" or "fair" ending) just might enjoy the film "The Player," starring Tim Robbins.
13 UTTERLY HYPNOTIZING
Easily one of the most audacious, spellbinding films you'll ever see. Trust Kaufman to stretch the boundaries of fiction with a delicious narrative that unfolds into itself, a script that's sporadically humorous but almost always thought-provoking, characters that you end up caring deeply about or even relating to - all of them, and some fabulous acting round the house!
Charlie (Cage), our main man, is a writer in a rut stumbling on his way to adapt a screenplay from a book about orchids. The first two-thirds of the movie is an amazing writer's journey through the mutually linked paths of creation and self-doubt.
His twin brother Donald (also Cage) however is everything Charlie is not: comfortable among people, facile with women, and, on his first time at the bat, quite capable of dashing off an action script of incomparable goofiness that instantly makes him a screen-writing rage. The moments between the two brothers are filled with comely gaffes but shroud a sinister snub at Hollywood for rewarding the alter-image, Donald.
Woven into this narrative is the parallel universe of Susan Orlean (Streep), whose book Charlie is adapting, and her encounters with an interesting bunch of Orchid hunters in Miami, specifically Laroche. As a pent-up New York journalist in a withering marriage, Meryl Streep is as riveting as you've seen her. As the orchid thief Laroche, Chris Cooper turns in his meatiest characterization to date.
Following these two skeins, the film engenders a sort of auto-auto-biography with mirror curtains. In addition to Kaufman's voice-over monologues about his inability to render the book onto the screen, it offers ancillary tidbits for contemplation and amusement at every turn. The Charlie in the movie wants to be able to write a movie about flowers, but to do so he must tell the entire history of the universe. Which is troubling. Yet, a montage sequence early in the film actually manages to relate this multimillennial history in an awesome and amusing display of cinematic bravado. This sort of switch and bait happens at several points in the film, and the effect is captivating.
There's a finespun undercurrent of the essentially parasitic relationship writers have with their subjects. Orlean's obsession with Laroche is mirrored by Kaufman's obsession with Orlean, and though the overall tone of the film is acerbic, Adaptation is poignant in its portrayal of both writers' struggle to engage with the world and develop passions of their own.
Ultimately, Adaptation both succeeds and fails at its own game. By the third act, Kaufman adds in a secret love story, drugs, swamp chases, etc. -- everything that any studio production chief would want to see in a script. My first thought is that Kaufman couldn't find a way to write himself out of his wacky story and therefore opted for the easy way out. Only later did his tactic occur to me, the zany action-packed denouement was perhaps a rebuke of his desire to completely renounce narrative conventions. Not only are conventions handy and reliable, they offer structure to a protagonist (such as our Charlie) who is inert in the extreme.
Plebeians may enjoy seeing it at least once for the sheer boggle of it but if like your movies daring/complex/offbeat, then this DVD should be in the front row in your most-precious rack.
14 Writers will love this movie.
I had no idea that other people had a voice in their heads that constantly says that you are definitely a fraud and a moron. Especially when it comes to writing something with meaning versus writing for the masses. This movie is a very unique view of the brain of an artist/writer.
Also, Chris Cooper deserved that Oscar. I was planning to riot if he didn't win. Because he succeeded in making me think that a man with no front teeth was sexy. No really folks, I have my Crest White Strips in now - I have a thing about teeth. But he pulled it off, of course with help from the writers.
15 Oscar Nominee that Should Have Won More....
The first time I saw this film I wondered to myself.... "Has this person read my morning pages?"
I saw it without knowing what it was about - that it was about a writer whose stream-of-consciousness-speak fills the movie, a narration-in-the-thoughts-of-the-life of Charlie Kaufman, who writes the movie and whose character is more of the star than "The Orchid Thief" which the movie is supposed to be about... or is it?
This movie is filled with twists and turns and wonderings.
What is real? What is not real? What are the imaginings of a creative mind?
Wait - that really amazing line - let me stop to capture it....
This is a movie that will echo in your mind for a long time IF you are open to its uniqueness.
The acting is superb - Chris Cooper is both amusing and tragic. Meryl Streep is captivating in her "elegant everywomanness" in search of passion. Nicholas Cage so effortlessly plays his dual role as Charlie and Donald that you will forget every other role he has ever played.
And then there are the great moments - the wisdom of the "not so smart"?! brother, Donald. The fearful frenetic energy of Charlie when he grasps a possible new plot twist. The sadness and searching energy from Susan, finally quenched by re-creating an everyday sound.
"I am happy now!"
This is a movie to be seen and reseen.
To be discussed and to be open to its message.
Don't try to make it anything the first time, just allow it to wash over you. It will delight you.
16 Absolutely Brilliant
Of all the great work that Spike Jonze and George Kaufman have done (together or separate), this is my favorite. I don't like to give too much away, because I feel that there are some revelatory moments in the film that might be rendered less powerful if you're too aware of the how's and why's of this movie, but there are things that can be said in its favor that don't require going to far into the actual plot.
First of all, it's extremely innovative in its use of film narrative. I think you really have to see it unfold to get it. It starts of fairly traditionally, depicting events based on fact: Kaufman was approached to do a movie adaptation of the book The Orchid Thief, and then proceeds to work on it.
Secondly, when this film came out, there was a fair amount of mystery surrounding it: is the twin brother credited with collaborating on the screen play real? How much of the film is factual, where does the line between reality and adaptation occur?
Finally, I've read a lot of mixed reviews of the ending. A lot of people seem to think it was too hokey, too unbelievable or even too Hollywood. I argue that it was a perfect way to end a film, one of whose many accomplishments is to point out the absurdity of adapting best-sellers into films as a way of further capitalizing on the success of the book itself.
If I say any more I fear I'll give away too much. I hope this review intrigues you enough to rent the DVD, and that in turn the film intrigues you enough to go online and investigate further the story behind it.
17 Adaptation is no Being John Malkovich
Although from the minds behind Being John Malkovich, Adaptation is long, drawn-out, and moves too slowly. The movie's title is a reference to evolution, to organisms adapting. The beginning features a montage of life evolving on Earth. Even Charles Darwin appears in this film. Only Nicholas Cage's wonderful performance (as two people) saves the movie. Charlie Kaufman (Nicholas Cage) is one of the most pathetic characters to ever appear on the screen. Even though he wrote the screenplay for Being John Malkovich, he sweats profusely and his self-depracating thoughts run in constant voiceover. In need of a good self-help book on self esteem, Charlie is trying to adapt a book called The Orchid Thief to a screenplay. Charlie is under a lot of pressure as he is way past his deadline. Distracting him are his annoying twin brother Donald (also Cage), who is a wanna-be screenwriter, and a girl whom Charlie loves, but can't bring himself to tell her.
Meryl Streep plays Susan, the book's author, a writer for the New Yorker. Her plaintive book about tormented orchid hunter John Roche(Chris Cooper) is non-fiction, and Charlie adamantly does not want to add lots of car chases, sex, or even conflict and change. He just wants to write a story about flowers.
The movie progresses, but Charlie doesn't. He is stagnant, frozen in fear and self-loathing. The last thirty minutes of the movie explodes in plot twists and action, but by then you are wishing this movie had evolved slightly faster than mankind.
This movie piqued my interest in orchids. I plan to research them, maybe even treat myself to one. The opening and ending credits music is creepy, different, and perfect for this film.
18 A surprising movie - but read the book first!
My wife and I listened to The Orchid Thief on CD during a summer car trip and enjoyed it immensely. It's a pretty straightforward chronicle of Mr. Laroche's antics as well as the history of orchid collecting (and stealing). We had heard of the movie, but until hearing (reading?) the book, had no interest in seeing it. But now, our interest was piqued, so we watched it. The movie is incredible and wildly original, using the book, the subjects and the author to springboard into a fascinating character study of the book's principals and the scriptwriter who tries to turn it into a movie. You must read the book first - you will be amazed and laugh out loud when the book's story ends, and everything goes off the rails, taking all the characters into a surreal adventure plot, with drugs, guns, and attacking alligators. Keep an open mind, and you will enjoy this very original and creative story. Cage's performance as the twin brothers is worth watching alone - they are identical, but he makes them both instantly recognizable as individuals.
19 Great Acting. Poor Screenwriting
I guess many people like giving the middle finger to Hollywood. We all need scape goats. Or do we?
This movie had wonderful acting, which pulled the movie up about 10 degrees past dull. While I do not care for contrived, poorly made Hollywood blockbusters, I am even more sickened by the pseudo-intellectual elite who are so angry at the cash being pulled in that they position themselves as the "struggling genus who will never be appreciated for the masterpieces he creates."
Blech. Total self pity. True genius isn't the sewage and bilge that swills in the hidden corners of your mind. Anyone can feel sorry for themselves. True genius speaks for itself, and doesn't need the elite to tell the "uneducated" dummy what the point was.
We live in a world where a 75 IQ individual is considered a fool despite the fact that he has enough intelligence to open doors for elderly women, and 150 IQ "geniuses" wallow in the muck of human existance, busy telling us how bad it is to be alive.
Poor, poor Kaufman. You need to write a screenplay about a man who is clueless to the fact that real people like heroes. You need to write a screenplay about a man who has no clue that we are not defined by what we love, but rather by how we act.
Kaufman is typical of our modern era: we are what we think we are, and we are NOT what we do. Kaufman thinks he's brilliant, all the while I feel like I'm sitting in a recommended restaurant being served a steaming pile of crap.
Enjoy being better than everyone!
20 Adaptation
Quite a different kind of movie for Nicolas, BUT as always he was excellent. You never have to wonder which twin is which because Nicolas did such a masterful job of portraying both brothers. As the plot unfolds, there are many turns in the road and it keeps you guessing all the way to the end. Two thumbs up!
21 in a league of its own
Original and breathtaking. Meryl Streep isn't just a supportive
actress, she is a presence. Who cares what the story is about, when it's taken to this level of creativity, it's cinema. The scenes with Nicolas Cage are funny and neurotic, infused with irony, frustration and the madness of a struggling artist. The opening sequence of the movie is outrageous without losing focus, its a movie unto itself, yet it's part of what the movie is about; evolution. So why does the director decide to unravel the whole thing in a ridiculous ending, like pulling a thread from your favourite beautifully wooven sweater and destroying it? He wanted to remind us of a few things;1) a movie is a movie, not life.2)this is what it's like when you give in to commercialism?3)he also let Cage's character have a little fun and forget perfection. And why did he do all this? To remind us he is the creator, that in the end the script doesn't have a mind of its own, it is victim to every Dick, Harry or Jane. But before we ever got to the ending, the film presented great moments of self-discovery and lingering moments that showed a new self-awareness with Streep's character. Also wonderful character development with Chris Cooper, who plays
a man obssesed with one particular flower, a man who understands beauty and the commitment, it takes to survive something horrible. Spike Jonze has created a film with visual abandon and without fancy special effects. Only imagination.
22 one of the best movies ever made
This movie is amazing. Charlie Kaufman is a genius filmmaker and his characters and storylines are so well thought out. Everyone should watch this movie.
23 Even if you don't like Charlie Kaufman... give it a chance!
If you have any creative aspirations of your own, it will be nearly impossible to disengage yourself from the twists and turns that Adaptation takes. Nicholas Cage gives his best performance to date playing a writerr named Charlie Kaufman who has been hired to create a screenplay from a book called `The Orchid Thief', written by Susan Orlean, and played by Meryl Streep. The comic relief in this film is done so well, never losing the sincerity of the characters. This comedy comes largely from Kaufman's brother Donald, also played by Nicholas Cage, who decides to become a screenwriter too, and despite his more subtle or should I say, lack of intelligence, becomes successful as Charlie continues to struggle. You won't stop guessing throughout the entire movie, and I'd be very surprised if you guess right.
24 Its a bizarre movie, more then entertaining, a think piece
Adaptation was aired on DirecTV several months ago. I caught part of it, and then I waited for it to be replayed at a later date, and saw it in full. It was the most confusing "think piece" I've seen in years. It was so thought provoking that I researched the topic of the movie, the book "the Orchid Thief" by Susan Orlean, which is a real book by a real person. I bought both the DVD and the book. The book is a good non-fiction piece about people involved in the orchid business. I highly recommend the book if you like the movie...and I very strongly recommend it above all if you don't like the movie, but are enthralled by the history of the orchid trade, and the obsession that orchids invoke throughout recent Western and European history.
But the movie has little to do with the non-fiction aspect of "The Orchid Thief". Perhaps twenty minutes are devoted to the non-fictional aspect in the book as the author explicitly wrote it. Instead the movie diverges into an admixture of truth and fiction about a screenwriter who is contracted to write a screenplay about a best seller book. The book becomes nothing more than a prop in the movie. Even the character of the author, Susan Orlean, is twisted and disparaged as the movie transforms the real life author into a Hollywood movie criminal. If it were my book and my good name, I would have sued Charlie Kaufman, the screenwriter. But don't misinterpret that statement; the movie itself is uniquely merited. It is extremely well written and so much so that it was thought provoking, forcing me to research the topic of the movie, the book itself. No movie in my recent memory has ever invoked my need to seek the book from where it was inspired. It's generally the other way around. In the 1970's, I was a Vonnegut fan. A devoted reader of his work. When they made "Slaughterhouse Five" and "Mother Night" into a movie, I was thrilled and satisfied; they were fairly accurate adaptations. When they made "Breakfast of Champions"; I was disappointed. Making a two-hour long movie is not easy from a book or a novel. Often, things are left out and the resulting movie is but an abridged version of the book or novel. Movies like "Out of Africa" and "Empire of the Sun", are tasteful adaptations made from books with minmal material changes and fictionalization.
This movie "Adaptation" is a plethora of duality, fiction twisted with fact, then twisted repeatedly again. Even the name "Adaptation" takes on a duality. Adaptation is the Darwinian term for organisms to fit and survive in their environment, just like an orchid adapts its shape and appearance through evolution to entice an insect to facilitate its pollination. But then the term "adaptation" also refers to what Hollywood does to a book or a novel. Like its Darwinian meaning, its changes to meet the needs of a Studio in order for it to survive and make money. The other dualities in this film are in the twin brother screenwriters. (I don't want to give away the ending so stop here if you don't want to read my interpretation of the twisted ending.) One is real and one is not. Like in the movie, "Fight Club" one character is the altered ego, the schizoid personality of the flesh and blood character. One is flesh and blood and the other is not. The viewer isn't given explicitly the truth until the very end of the movie, but the movie hints at that truth throughout. Nothing in the movie "Fight Club" or "Adaptation" contradicts that one of the characters is the product of a schizoid mind, and is not really flesh and blood. Just like in the "Sixth-Sense", the psychologist turns out to be ghost, and the movie cleverly weaves the ghost into the day to day life of a child who can see the ghost but no one else can. You must see the movie several times to see the subtle manner in which it is done. It works because Hollywood can impute twisted plots anyway it sees fit. It throws the responsibility of interpreting subtle hints to the viewing audience. The new generation of movies are much more intellectually stimulating then the movies a generation ago. The twin screenwriters in "Adaptation" have opposite talents and social skills and in the end the author of the book "metaphorically" kills one of the brothers. Note that I use the term "metaphorically" because, after all, the screenwriter is going crazy trying to adapt the book into a screenplay and be true to the book. But in the movie it is done literally. Hence, a new duality between fiction and non-fiction. It "kills" this screen writer, that he just can't adapt this wonderful non-fiction work, and thus we end up with this weird twisted product out of Hollywood that purports that it was impossible to make a "true" adaptation of this book by Susan Orlean. In real life conclusion, Susan Orlean wrote a masterpiece of non-fiction, that killed the screenwriter in the process of adapting it to a Hollywood movie. A true adaptation could not be done, and instead we have a delightful and bizzare movie of the process of adapting a book into a movie. Like in the words of the dead Donald Kaufman, "isn't that twisted...man..?".
25 Adapting to life...
Adaptation was the first movie by Charlie Kaufman that I have seen. It is an amazing film I must say, as you see the lives of two diferent brothers, twins to be more precise, and the way they face it. It is mostly about adapting to the many things that happen in life. It develops this idea by showing a bald, fat Charlie Kaufman attempting to adapt a book to the big screen. Although the story is far more complex than this, as it places diferent characters in a variety of situations, it show how dificult it can be for someone to change life, to adapt to it. As it happens in the films of C. Kaufman, the story always leave room for many thoughts. You will find yourself having a great time during the film, with its twisted plot, that keeps coming and going through time, and also feeling sorry for a Charlie that seems to think his life is a miserable mess, and therefore doing very little to change it. It is surprising to me, how Kaufman is always able to show diferent aspects of human life with such as smart touch, and to leave his own perspective of the subject. This movie is as clever as his last work, "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and should be seeing with an open mind. The story of the book adaptation is very interesting, but secondary. What really is amazing about it is how the movie goes in one direction when C. Kaufman is trying to adapt the book, and when he asks his brother's help, which changes the movie completely, turning it to a all new direction. That is something extraordinary. And also pay attention to how all the characters "adapt" or change during the film and why they were forced to do so. This is a must see film for anyone smart enought to realise that they too need to "AdApT".
26 The kind you need to see again to appreciate....
I just watched this DVD for the first time and must say it compelled me to watch every frame.
I'm not sure what I watched, but it was (1) original; (2) thought-provoking and (3) everyone in Hollywood should be required to watch it before they work on another proejct.
Nicholas Cage does an excellent job; Chris Cooper (one of my favorites) is awesome; Meryl Streep doesn't steal the show . . . but she does a grand job, too.
I'm going to watch this DVD again and again because I know there is a lot I missed the first time around.
I'm also going to investigate that elusive "ghost" orchid.
Enjoy!
27 The Academy is Officially Nuts
Have you ever noticed that some of the movies that are hailed as "great dramas" are actually pieces of crap? This is that kind of movie. The basic premise of this movie is that a successful movie screenplay writer (Nicholas Cage) has just finished a great movie and now has writer's block. Cage lives with his twin brother (also played by Cage) who frustrates him. There are some other parallel stories going on involving Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper, but I won't waste your time.
It seems like your basic middle-of-the-road dramedy with celebrity names plastered over it, but this movie goes even farther than that. It tries to capture the essence of "the repressed self" that headline (better) movies like 'American Beauty', but fails miserably. What tries to connect with pent up inner frustration hits nowhere near the mark, and the writing just plain sucks. In the end, this movie is BAD, simply put. "Bizarre" is also a word that comes to mind, but not in a good or clever way. Please don't throw two hours of your life away on this movie.
28 A Real Mind Bender
This bizarre movie is from the same director that brought us "Being John Malkovich". Nicholas Cage plays Charlie Kaufman, a neurotic scriptwriter who obsesses even about the smallest of things. He has a self hatred that is fueled by the presense of his twin brother Donald, an easy-going fellow who breezes through life and accoplishes things easily. Particularly vexing for Charlie, Donald even becomes a genius screenwriter after taking a weekend seminar.
Charlie's problems multiply when he agrees to write an adaptation of a best-selling non-fiction book about an orchid poacher in Florida. On reading the book, he finds that it is filled with the author's feelings and contains absolutely almost no plot. Despite this, he tries to write a screenplay which will reveal the true beauty of flowers. This drives him to the brink of insanity.
This is a really original movie. After watching it, you won't be able to think of anything to compare it with. Also, Nicholas Cage is as manic as ever. If anyone can play the role of someone on the edge of madness, he can. Artistically, this gets five stars. I think that film school students should check this out. Even in this age of endless sequels, it is still possible to make and original film. One warning though, you might not understand it with just one viewing. This one requires multiple viewings to get it down.
29 A Breath of Fresh Air!
A hilarious Hollywood/Anti-Hollywood romp. The ever reliable Streep gives her best performance in years and the too-lately often barely tolerable Cage absolutely shines as the Kaufman twins. Chris Cooper's over-the-top performance is both touching and hilarious.
Adaptation is a breath of fresh air far away from the usual Hollywood smog. Jones and company should keep 'em coming!
30 Adaptation
This is the kind of movie you watch, and you just can't really talk to anybody about it because it is so different from any other movie you have ever seen. This is probably the most original movie I have ever seen. The best way I can describe it is that it is about the screenwriter writing this movie about a screenwriter writing a movie about a book. If that confuses you, or even if it doesn't, go rent this movie. The story, if you can call it a story, is interesting, the characters are entertaining and thought provoking, and it is the only movie thus far where I have honestly said "Wow, Nicholas Cage CAN act."
31 Great film, but not for everybody.
I absolutely loved Adaptation and saw it multiple times in the theatre. The script is ingenious, the acting excellent, and overall the movie was fascinating (and often hilarious).
However, as these reviews indicate, it is not to everybody's liking. If you appreciate the somewhat bizarre (like Being John Malkovich), you will probably love this movie. If you don't, save your money.
32 The becoming cover up!
The absence of creativeness and the absence of absolute commitment , the desperation , the hunger for winning no matter how , the maquiavelian moods and the duality , the breakthrough in the personality of a human being metaphrically represented as twins invades this original script.
Obviously the movie always keeps a hidden card in your reservoir plot. The story is told through great narrative elipsis which overlaps one to another . This puzzle technique reminds us to Memento , in this sense. And Robert Altman 's style. (The player or Shorts cuts)
This smart use of two twins has been employed by other directors (Sean Penn in the indian runner , for instance) , but the resourec that keeps you in the seat is the richness in the second characters .
Since a no sense accidents shapes the life of a man , who tells his private life to a greddy writer, to inspire her , will be without knowing them the sparkling issue to exploid the dramatci nucleus .
The film certainly lost his fierce impact gotten in the first half of the film , seeking may be the critical gaze about the decay moral .
Good work for all the cast . Superb direction and extraordinary special effects ( the crash car in both cases)
33 uhhhhhh... no.
I guess I should've known better, being that I loathed Being John Malkovich, but I was pretty shlitzed when I hit the video store so what the hell.
So tonight I put on the DVD, only to find that the first minutes, while white credits are slowly getting gone through on a black screen, are occupied by a voice-over by Nicholas Cage, whining about his life at great length like a Woody Allenesque self-pitying slob. "I need to get my life back on track, gotta start running five miles a day, really do it this time, make it happen maybe I'll take up rock climbing I'm really in a rut...." This person has a severely neurotic personality which is not attractive in the least. Its at this point you begin to see what you're in for with this picture: a kind of more irritating, slightly more functional version of Rainman, only minus the card counting. The movie progresses from there to self-consciously daffy scene-making, where you get to see a band of guys ripping off an endangered orchid from like the everglades. A park ranger shows up and this orchid-stealing piece of white trash gives him some claptrap about how his associates are all American Indians and as such would be immune from prosecution for stealing the orchid, since they apparently have some special dispensation which states that they can do as they please on the grounds that they are inscrutable savages who should be left to their backward ways. You know, they use the orchid for some vague and hypothetical tribal type purpose that no white man should interfere with etc. etc. This is all supposed to be very entertaining. Don't ask me why.
34 Sublime Puzzle
I did not see Being John Malkovich. It was brought to screen by Spike Jonze and screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, but I will correct that error shortly. Adaptation is a Hollywood insider movie. Like Hollywood Boulevard with Gloria Swanson and William Holden, it takes you behind the scenes. This is a fictionalization of real screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman's bizarre difficulties with adapting a novel, Susan Orlean's real book, The Orchid Thief. A fictional brother was created for Charlie. Donald is the gabby and cheerful alter ego of morose and introspective Charlie, and Cage plays both. This is a nice turn for Cage because he gets to play the twin-opposites with amazing clarity. Charlie is the screenwriter that believes originality and cerebral acrobatics are the stuff of art. His brother, the wifty, Donald is writing a screenplay too. His Hollywood screenwriting guru, Brian Cox plays Robert McKee. The guru preaches formula. But Donald's script is accepted immediately and his success with the ladies is driving his brother crazy. Charlie's writers-block over the Orchid script paralyzes not only his writing but also his ability to love. Meryl Street plays the real life author Susan Orlean. The writer becomes passionately involved with goofball horticulturalist and adventurer, John LaRouche played by Chris Cooper. LaRouche risks his life to find the perfect orchid, a Conradian theme from Heart of Darkness. But if that orchid can be ground up into powder and snorted like cocaine to produce a state of perfect passion, then can we blame the addicted Meryl Street for loving toothless LaRouche? Then there is violence, car chases, and the sex scene. This is the real Kaufman being sarcastic, playful, and err formulistic. I once heard it said that there are only 24 plots available to the writer in human experience.
35 Absolutely Horrible!
Saw this movie thinking it truly must be worth all of the hype. Not that far into it I turned to my friend and said "If Nicholas Cage masturbates one more time, I'm leaving!"
Shining perfomance (once again) by Chris Cooper, and the story between him and Meryl Streep was worth watching. However in this film, their wonderful performances were wasted.
As for Nick, I generally like the guy, but this movie was a stretch for him. The entire time I felt as though I was watching a guy who was acting, and not as if I were in the story. Not sure what all of the buzz was about. Truly a disappointment in my view.
Spend your money on "Lost in Translation."
36 A film of unparalleled genius
Adaptation is the most well-written movie I have ever seen. That statement is kind of ironic after having seen the movie because it is about writer's block and Charlie Kaufman, the screenwriter, writes the movie about how he can't think of anything to write a movie about. Go see, then talk to me, then maybe, just maybe, I'll let you put an apple on your head and have me shoot it off with compound hunting bow--which is a privelege the ordinary man can't often afford himself. Adaptation is the movie that all screenwriters probably wish they had the balls to write but thought it wouldn't get sold or wouldn't go anywhere. Charlie Kaufman did it, and it is a modern art masterpiece. Other greats by Kaufman- Being John Malkovich (the screenplay is better than the movie, which can be read on beingcharliekaufman.com), and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
37 A simple desire wrapped in complexity
I have watched this movie many many times and I never get bored with it. It is truly one of the most original movies of the past ten years. Try to explain the plot to people and you will no doubt confuse them, but it all makes sense when watching the movie. Let me try to explain the plot:
Charlie Kaufmann (an actual person in real life) is portrayed in this movie by Nicholas Cage. Kaufmann is trying to adapt the book "the orchid thief" (which is an actual book in real life) into a movie. His twin brother Donald (who is not real, although he was credited with having helped write the screenplay) is writing a movie of his own called "the 3." Charlie and Donald have two different styles of writing. The first half of Adaptation is the kind of movie Charlie wants to make "The Orchid Thief" into, but when he can't write the screenplay he enlists the aid of his brother. From here until the end of Adaptation we get a taste of what Donalds movies are like.
A little complicated to talk about, but watch it and you'll get it.
38 Hollywood: Home of the Sad, Sick and Depressed
Nicolas Cage's performance (in a double role as twin brothers) can convince anyone that a life as an artist in Hollywood is one of loneliness and psychosis. Success as a writer comes at the cost of fear to fail. Meryl Streep (in yet another tailor-made role) adds her own flavor of "Silkwood-like" depression to the picture.
Cleverly intertwining story/plot keep you interested, especially the unexpected portions of (graphic) violence and terror. Sex, drugs and simultaneous refusal to accept responsibility for one's own actions eventually turn to repulsion. You lose empathy for the lead characters, who are hopelessly lost on a path of self-destruction. The innocense of beautiful orchids (the focal point of the story) is quickly put aside by the fast-paced story with its surprise shockers.
THIS won all of the Oscar Nomination? Great acting, yes. Excellent script, ok. Enertainment? No way! This was a one-time-view for me, and I recomment this film only to die hard fans of the actors, presuming they have a strong stomach for extreme violence. The stuff that nightmares are made of!**
39 Nothing great...
While I wasn't abhorred by this movie, I also didn't find it worthy of my purchase. I don't know if it didn't capture my interests, or if it just wasn't a good movie. Sometimes the writing seems a little bit forced, and the movie moves so slow. One reviewer noted that it was a wanna-be intellectual movie, I kindof agree with that. It did seem to steal a few traits common in "intellectual" movies, and present them in a boring and even annoying light.
40 4 1/2 stars, actually, but I can't choose that, can I?
The two most wildly innovative screenplays I have seen filmed are "Being John Malkovich" and "Adaptation" - both written by Charlie Kaufman. Note that I am not saying "the two most satisfyingly entertaining" - much of my enjoyment of both of these films are due to the sheer audacity of the labyrinth-on-drugs plotlines. I won't attempt to give anything away or bother covering what this story *is* as there are hundreds of other reviews you can read for that. What I DO want to say is that I feel Mr. Kaufman's screenplay is a joke - at his expense - and that he's trying to let us in on it. When his character is finding it difficult to impossible to adapt Susan Orlean's "The Orchid Thief" he writes himself into the story, THEN writes in his fictional twin brother who attends a "screenplay-by-numbers" class taught by Brian Cox and writes a big bucks by-the-numbers screenplay.
An abrupt change occurs in the final act of the movie when (here's my interpretation) Charlie caves in and decides to resolve the movie in a "hollywood-big-action-suspense-thriller-by-the-numbers" way. I won't give away the details, but the real hero of "The Orchid Thief", the author of that book, the screenwriter and his fictional twin brother all collide in a weird swampy film noire ending that isn't funny "ha-ha", but funny in an "isn't it ridiculous when Hollywood makes films that have to conform to formulas?" kind of way.
You're welcome to your own interpretation, but I liked it. Don't expect to get deep into these characters, because by the end you hardly know "who's who" - but as I said up at the top: this is one of the two most original film's I know of.
41 Another cynical Hollywood in joke
...just like Kaufman's stunningly awful "Being John Malkovich", but this time, it's almost entertaining, probably moreso if you dont know what to expect here. Charlie Kaufman cant figure out how to bring a plotless novel to screen, and finds the only way to get a movie out of it is to make the movie about how he couldnt figure out how to bring the plotless novel to the screen. With a little help from his more gregarious screenwriter brother(who prefers the formulaic to Kaufman's more sensitive, off-kilter stuff), he barely manages to adapt himself and the movie. And you and I pay money so he can tell us what a lousy screenwriter and sorry human being he is. Regardless of the fact that the joke is on the viewer, I've seen worse.
42 Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen
I have attempted to watch this movie twice. After getting part way through it both times, longer through the second time just to force ourselves to give it more of a chance, we shut it off due to the fact that we were so incredibly bored.
I have absolutely no understanding of what any of you, who liked it, see in this movie. Perhaps it gets better, but when over half of the movie is dead, I don't see how it could.
43 Adaptation (2002)
Director: Spike Jonze
Cast: Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper.
Running Time: 114 minutes.
Rated R for violence, language, and mild sexual situations.
One of the most stunningly original films of the past decade, "Adaptation" is a triumph of uniqueness, hope, brotherhood, and perseverance. Director Spike Jonze tells the story of Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage), a chubby, poor self-esteem stricken screenplay writer assigned to adapt the Susan Orlean novel about flowers into a film. As Charlie learns more about Orlean (Streep) and her obsession with the quirky Orchid lover John Larouche (played by Oscar-winning Chris Cooper, who was long overdue for the recognition, for he should have won for "American Beauty), he realizes even further that he does not possess the qualities to write a formidable script based on the book.
While he is attempting to write a script and loosing his mind in the process, Charlie is encouraged by his upbeat, yet overly annoying screen-writing brother Donald (also played by Cage; they are twin brothers) to write the story in a more traditional, Hollywood style. Charlie refuses this notion and flies to New York to meet Orlean in search of the perfect idea for his script. Through this journey, Charlie learns about what it means to love, what his purpose in life should be, and how a simple thing such as an orchid can change lives.
What makes "Adaptation" so intriguing is that it is a film about a screen-writer who is writing a script about the actual events that are transpiring on film. Jonze takes us on a crazy ride of emotions, through the troubled mind of Charlie, the desiring soul of Susan Orlean, and the zany antics of the grisly-toothed Larouche that envelopes around a theme that will touch all those who grasp it. Cage is wonderful as the joint brothers and Streep is stellar as usual in her supporting role. Although not for all due to the different beating of its drum, "Adaptation" is an essential piece of the modern film puzzle and truly a work of film stylistic art at its finest.
44 what a boring, pseudo-intellectual piece of pulp
isnt it strange that everyone that likes this film thinks that those that dont simply have not understood it? surely if a large number of people all consider something misunderstood by others, there is a degree of consensus that the film has not been understood. and i do not doubt that all those people are mightily intelligent, but it is clearly true in the field of philosophy that genius is apparent to those who do not possess genius because some element of said genius resides in the ability to convey the brilliant in a simplistic package. if that is correct, which i suppose it might not be, then this is not genius, since it is so methodically misunderstood. anyway, understanding, appreciating and enjoying are clearly very different things and sometimes weird is just plain weird. sometimes weird is intricate and clever. sometimes weird is plain, stupid and pointless. i would also surmise that every film of this type generates a series of people that consider it to be each of these descriptions.
unfortunately for me, i found this utterly and incontravertibly boring. if i had to make a stab at it i would guess that charlie kaufman thought it would be funny in an andy kaufman kind of way to satirise himself making a movie about satirising himself. this movie plays like an in-joke. if you can laugh with the writer then by all means laugh. i didnt even manage a chuckle.
what i found puzzling was that chris cooper and meryl streep put in excellent performances that deserved so much and yet not even these could elevate such a wantonly introspective script. i don't much like nic cage, i dont think he is a great serious actor, he gets far too hammy and should stick to black comedies and action. maybe this is black comedy and i have missed the point? sadly i just dont care.
the cinematography in the swamp scenes is superb.
i salute kaufman because he has either created a masterpiece or a terrible film and even if people criticise it as the latter he can adopt a knowing grin and point to all the smart critics who have delved so much deeper and know the true meaning and know that this is, undeniably, a masterpiece. a successful exercise in back-patting mr kaufman. however, when were you planning on engaging your audience instead of either ignoring them or laughing at them? artistically your approach might be a stroke of genius, but as entertainment i found nothing commendable or absorbing.
so this is a 1* effort, but you might find it deserves 5* and maybe that is the genius of it, or maybe it is the fatal flaw. if i hate it, am i missing something? only that you need not ask yourself that question, in my opinion....
i cared far more about the orchids than i ever could about this film.
45 Overly-hyped, cliched and tired
The film is comic at points but its juxtaposition of caricatures are just that. As parody its representations are too broad to provide the kind of delight one finds in say, "Dr. Strangelove." I wouldn't recommend even wasting a Netflix rental on it.
46 Absolutely brilliant piece of filmmaking
I remember walking out of the theatre and saying "that was one of the most brilliantly written, brilliantly acted movies I've ever seen." And it was. Nicolas Cage puts together a performance that actually tops his stellarness in "Leaving Las Vegas." What a complex set of characters he plays (twins with totally opposite personalities) and he pulls it off amazingly.
The supporting cast is first rate as well. Meryl Streep's character is complex, but as usual, she pulls it off, in fact we've come to expect this kind of performance from Ms. Streep that we sort of just take her for granted. She's excellent nonetheless. Chris Cooper is worthy of his best supporting actor role, he deserved it.
The story is a tangled web that weaves the story and the story Nicolas Cage's character is trying to write together - sort of reality and alternate reality. Sounds complicated, but when you consider this movie was put together by the same guys who came up with "Being John Malkovich" I guess we shouldn't be surprised.
Line of the film "It's not about what loves you bro, it's about what you love..."
An absolute must see!
47 It's an excellent movie whether you like it or not.
Whether or not one likes this movie does not matter. The fact is, it's one of the most creative films to come out of the Hollywood machine in a long time. It is well scripted, well directed, and, of course, well acted. My theory is that most people who dislike it don't understand it. The first half is supposed to be horrible, because Charlie Kaufman is parodying himself by creating an "artsy" screenplay. The first half is meant to appeal to an indie crowd. This is intentional, because he is in contention with the ideals put forth by McKee. When his brother takes over, he puts McKee's formulaic ideas into practice, complete with ridiculous plot twists and a "Hollywood" happy ending. In this way, Kaufman brilliantly criticizes formulaic screenwriting and his own pretentions. Those who don't get it need to read more. Non-linear storytelling has existed for quite awhile and isn't going away any time soon. Also, if you don't like a movie, please learn how to spell. Poor grammar will only take away your credibility
48 Thanks to Chris Cooper
I was really disappointed in this Nicholas Cage Vehicle. Cage is a superior actor and his role in this just didn't do it. Chris Cooper was the saving grace in this movie. If it hadn't been for his superior acting this movie would of been a complete flop.
49 The Ending is Not An Accident
Allow me to make my voice heard: this was my favorite movie of 2002, and the writing was stellar. It plays masterfully on all of the Hollywood formulas, principles, or whatever one might call them, that are peddled at levels from 3-day seminar to University programs in screenwriting, and is always aware of the ways in which it is doing so.
The reason that many get lost at some point along the way and deem the movie "confusing" or say that it "changed tone" is that the writer, Charlie Kaufman, never feels the need to wink to his audience. He has said in interviews that he never worries about whether anyone's going to be able to follow along with him, and he writes what would interest him. In my eyes, this is a sign of respect for the audience, where others see pretension.
The way in which this movie, which is about its own creation, blends fantasy and reality, is truly engrossing and original. Kaufman and Jonze have experience with turning real-life personalities into fictional characters from "Being John Malkovich," but this goes several steps further, and truly abuses the trust of the audience in some of the most wonderful ways imaginable.
Put your thinking caps and your fun pants on when you sit down to watch this movie, and enjoy the ride.
50 Nicolas Cage is brilliant
I had mixed feeling about this movie but as it progressed, I realized that it was brilliant. Nicolas Cage gives a wonderful performance in this emotional movie about a screen writer searching for himself as he writes a script that ends up being about himself. Merrill Street gives an outstanding performance in her supporting role. I would recomend this movie to anyone looking to see an emotional film that give off many different moods.
51 Some Flowers Bloom in Cages some on Stages
Hah! Adaptation is wholly original like Frankenstein, a creation of bits and pieces of everything come to life against all probability. Unlike Frankenstein, Spike Jonze's "Adaptation," lives in the end and is quite a hoot along the way.
I so wanted to only throw four stars at this one, as the film literally adapted from a meandering meaning of life, finding oneself, journey, to guns and swamps and murders and drugs and alligators. Though it plays along with the conceit true to form, along the way it felt lost. But happily, screenwriter Donald Kaufman saves the day bringing it back full circle, back to the meaning.
Cage seems like an odd choice to play a younger sort of fatter Woody Allen sort of character in Los Angeles, but in the end he too pulls it off. We realize what a performer Cage is when the audience doesn't blink an eye trying to figure out which twin brother screenwriter is who (both played by Cage).
When all is said and done the movie is just so much fun. And added to the fun, we get some things to ponder. Things like, where does reality leave off and art begin, how do people derive meaning in their lives, why is it such a thrill to Be John Malkovich, what's the connection between insects and flowers, how did Nicolas Cage get fat, are voice overs useful, and especially this one, "We are what we love, not what loves us."
I'm not sure I've ran into anything else quite like Jonze and Kaufman's "Adaptation," but it's added a new wrinkle in enjoyable originality. Don't be the last person to see this movie and don't go stealing Orchids.
--MMW
52 Nicholas Cage saves this film
I wanted to like this movie but just couldn't.This is a sad case of the filmakers "high on themselves" and in my opinion must think they are "legends in their own minds."True if you are a screen writter, film maker, some Hollywood hotshot or journalist this movie could be everything you want it to be.For me I just wanted to witness Nicholas Cage in another great role in a good movie. It's just Nicholas Cage in another one of his dozen bad movies. Cage's acting is well done and the best since "Leaving Las Vegas", but not as outstanding just for the fact the characters in this movie are not likeable, nor is the story any good. It was very boring not to mention also very depressing. Some comical aspects are in this movie but the filmakers are WAY OVER thinking this whole project of just a movie.The filmakers are so "high on themselves" that it's almost emmbarrasing to the average movie go-er to bother even watching.This is the kind of CRAP the Hollywood bozos like to call art and amuze themselves with I guess. In no shape or form would I call this David Lynch wannabe any form of art. As a average movie go-er looking for a good comedy-drama, this one just plain stinks and the only thing that held it together was the acting in the movie.Too bad it couldn't of been redone with a better outlook on life and alot better ACTUAL WRITTING. Which is what the movie is about. I suppose half the reason this movie stunk, IN MY OPINION, is because the writters must've had writter's block and nowhere to go, or only to peddle this bad movie to their Hollywood buddies that would approve.I suppose if you like the kind of movies where Hollywood people are into themselves, then this is your flick.Wanna see a REAL movie? Rent "The Big Lebowski" for some good writting for a dumb movie. Plus it's actually funny and not depressing like this one.I wanted to like this movie, but I ended up hating it. The bad acid-trip like story telling and writting overshadows Nic Cage's acting and just makes this one a mess in my opinion.I have also recently noticed that on amazon if you write a public "opinion" review of a movie, ESPECIALLY a movie that has fans, basically "fanatics" of a certain movie, they give you bad ratings. These are the same David Lynch fans that never can ever explain what they just seen, so they call it "a form of art". I respect other opinions of movies and if they enjoyed it then good for them.But my review is for those that if your NOT into the whole "Hollywood scene" then I would figure they might not like this movie. I found nothing facinating about this movie. It was like a bad "Twilight Zone" boring Hollywood drama IN MY OPINION.
53 What a bore
This movie felt 4 hours long. Very tired and boring.
54 An insiders extended joke
The movie is a send-up of the ubiquitous Robert McKee Storytelling Course, a screenwriting boot camp that most screen writers attend at one time in their life. In the film McKee is played perfectly by Ronnie Cox and coaches a confused and blocked screenwriter played by Nicholas Cage into bringing drama into a simple film about orchids. Cage is convinced that we need not have victory culture seeping into each and every movie, rather some movies are simple visuals delights. "Don't waste my two hours," bellows Mckee in a fashion recognizable to all who have attended. Thereafter the film, which is a film about a film being made, starts to follow McKee's storytelling structure which is further derived from Hellenic story telling principles. Strange and bizarre things begin to happen to the most mellow and common of people, Cage's "brother" turns out to be an alter ego. There is a car crash, a chase through a swamp and a finale of the protagonist being eaten by an alligator, a sequence that leaves the knowing rolling in the aisles with laughter. Hints are given early in the film that it shall turn this way, a McKee Storytelling course schedule taped to a refrigerator, a mention of it in a brief conversation with a hilarious agent. I can see that non-writers got a charge from the film by reading the other reviews, although I don't know how they could make sense of it without knowledge of McKee; but if you are writer and have been subjected to the dogma of Greek storytelling methods you will have the laugh of your life with this one.
55 Clever, deep, funny, ... brilliant!
I love this film. I find it hilarious at times, touching and very entertaining. The dialogues are great -especially those between the twins. Those who criticize the ending, I do not understand why. It works pretty well, going against everything that Charlie Kaufman first told he was not going to do, at the begining of the film. And it even touched me.
To the previous reviewer who talked about the twins I have somethng to tell you: Donald Kaufman does not exist!!! Charlie invented him for this movie!
I guess if you didn't get that in the first place it is clear that you wouldn't have high consideration of the ending.
56 Oh, what a movie it might have been...
If only the filmmakers hadn't tried so hard to be clever.
When I first saw this film, I was enthralled within fifteen minutes. The writing was charming, the images and direction were exciting, and I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the acting, especially the solid, nuanced performance of Nicholas Cage, an actor who had previously underwhelmed me on a fairly consistent basis. (Not to mention Chris Cooper, whose Oscar was well-deserved.)
Then, the last 20 minutes happened.
I never expected a traditionally satisfying ending; it was clear early on that this was not a conventional movie. I was not expecting to be happy about or even comfortable with the film's conclusion; I was not expecting the filmmakers to effectively give the audience the finger, either.
The ending to this movie is frankly insulting. The story builds to a climactic scene, but instead of confronting the characters' conflicts, the plot suddenly takes a nonsensical turn. An artificial conflict suddenly moves the story toward a contrived "Hollywood" ending, despite the film's previously clear stance against such cheap devices. Some say that this is the "genius" of the movie; this is not genius, it's thematic relativism, and it's achieved through mental and emotional sleight of hand.
On a repeat viewing, I noticed earlier signs of the filmmakers' disdain for their audience. For example, the bar scene between Cage's Kaufman and Brian Cox's puffed-up lecturer character effectively outlines the way that the real-life filmmakers later manipulate the audience's sensibilities to create a "successful" movie. Of course, one can't be sure whether this is fully intentional or simply the product of laziness or creative drought; with such an obviously gifted screenwriter, however, there is no excuse. Charlie Kaufman could have come up with an appropriate ending for his story... and I do believe that he had a story worth telling, even if it was rooted in a kind of backhanded narcissism.
When watching Adaptation, however, I have trouble retaining any faith in Kaufman by the end; his 180-turn toward formula storytelling is not done in a way that includes the audience. He is apparently commenting on the base, mindless desires of moviegoers--certainly fair game for criticism--but unfortunately, he does not seem to want to enlighten us about our flaws. He seems to think it doesn't matter whether he shares his observations with us or not because we probably wouldn't understand anyway.
In Adaptation, Charlie Kaufman gives up on his audience, and that may be the worst sin an artist can commit. Even if they are successful, conscious attempts to be tricky or "clever" are cheap and unworthy of those with artistic integrity. Elitist inside jokes about the stupidity of the masses serve no purpose beyond stroking the artist's ego, and they should never be allowed to trump honest expression.
I would see this movie again for its superlative technical elements and committed performances, but I would not buy it. I will not reward artists who promote the idea that the public is incapable of thorough analysis, original thought, or strength of belief. If I am not worth the filmmakers' best efforts, then their creation is not worth my money.
57 Adaptation - confusing and slow
Last Xmas I brought my recently purchased "ADAPTATION" dvd to my brother's, and we sat down to watch. I had already prepped them as to the basic storyline and the award nominations.
After 15 minutes into the movie I turned to my brother and his wife asking if they wanted to watch something else. I asked the question because I was embarassed at how bad the movie was so far. They were kind and said they'd watch it thru to the end. In actuality, they both nodded off from sheer boredom.
I had high hopes for the flick since Meryl Streep and Nick Cage were both favorite actors plus the buzz had been so favorable. Nick's performance actually made me uncomfortable. It appeared too mannered and I could not feel any sympathy for his plight.
Meryl is just plain beautiful to watch but again an unsympathetic character.
Chris Cooper kept what momentum existed in the movie going with his performance, and I found Cara Seymour to be very endearing.
And the last 20 minutes of the movie appeared contrived and a bit pointless.
I must state here I enjoyed "Fargo", and loved "Raising Arizona" and "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?" But I cannot recommend this movie. The two star rating is based on Chris Cooper's performance and the opportunity to see Meryl Streep on the screen.
58 Soggy
...make that a 3.5. This one's a disappointment, as is true of many sophomore efforts. The idea of mauling a New Yorker "This story is really about me" essay is brilliant, but... Well, several people mentioned the Coens, and that's the failing right there: it comes nowhere near to their level of inspired lunacy. We're promised a good trashing, and it just doesn't happen.
Instead we get what seems like hours of staring at Charlie Kaufmann's misery and angst, much of which is played straight. And when we finally switch to "Donald" mode for the last half-hour ...that's done with a straight face too, exactly as if it was a cheapo made-for-TV thriller and nothing more. Too many McKee seminars, if you ask me.
Still, it's fun to watch Cage play both sides of a truly creepo duo, and how many times have you seen Streep in a trashy role? I do think Cooper has been better elsewhere, though.
So this not the magic swamp orchid everybody was expecting. But Jonze and the Kaufmanns may have one in them. It'll pay to keep watching.
59 Over-rated, lame-arsed-pomo dreck...
Well, at least Kaufman seems to know that he can't write a third act to save his (or his fictional brother's) life. The emperor is officially desnudo, my friends.
60 Off the Wall - and perfect
Adaptation - a real triumph of screenwriting and filmmaking. This movie is totally unique and witty and off the wall funny. Nic Cage is great, as both twins in the movie. Just the fact that this movie ties into "Being John Malkovich" makes it a winner. Chris Cooper is tremendous, as the quirky orchid hunter who is stalked by the Meryl Streep, who does an excellent job as well. This movie is great on a cold winter night to bring some off the wall humor for you to get into and laugh for a while. B+
Joseph Dworak
61 Having the Cake & Eating It Too
ADAPTATION is a hilarious movie. If you've every taken a writing class, are a creative writer, watch tons of movies, or know about the film industry it is just too much fun.
Nicholas Cage plays two characters in the film in real tour de force performance. He actually seems like two people. He plays Charlie Kaufman, who must adapt a book by Susan Orleans to the screen and he plays Donald Kaufman, the twin brother that has the most clichŽd ideas about film scripting. And yet, and yet, Donald's "original" script is accepted, while Charlie is still trying to get a bead on The Orchid Thief and its author.
The movie takes a melodramatic adventure turn and I was rolling on the floor at how the real Charlie Kaufman managed to have his cake and eat it too. The film's conceit and concept is so tongue-in-cheek, we the viewing audience have no idea what is suppose to be real or not real. Film isn't real anyways, and yet we contemplate what is real in the film. It's so convoluted, it make the head spin.
This movie plays with our heads. It makes us laugh and think at the same time. What is the nature of reality? What is the nature of film? As an audience didn't we like that melodramatic part? What is the writing process really like? Don't writers have as split personality, one that thinks too hard and fails to act, and one that doesn't think at all, but embraces the surface all too easily?
This movie is too fun and must be experienced to be appreciated to its fullest. No review can tell you about it.
62 One of the Best Films of 2003
Was not a big fan of Being John Malkovich, finding it very silly, repetitious and drab. This was something else, it kicks in and pulls you in with some of the most creative and unexpected twists you will find in movies these days. Nicolas Cage's performance was absolutely inspired as Charlie (and Donald) Kaufman - why he wasn't picked to play Willy Wonka, I'll never understand. The frustrations of a writer are told perfectly and as the story unwravels along with the evolution of "The Orchid Thief" seeing how both the characters in the movie and book both grow throughout the film - and seeing how the Donald side of Nick Cage was coming through Charlie, etc, etc. - so much to take in, think about, interpret, laugh with - and simply seeing such great actors make wonderful performances seem effortless as they bring these characters to life is what makes movies so darn wonderful. In a year when you had such drivel as Punch Drunk Love (a not-so-funny, and very bad parody of art/indy/foreign films), Adaptation was a Godsend.
63 It is ill contrived mess of a movie.
I loved Being John Malkovich (their previous film) but this exercise in non linear originality is just falls short, flat and on it's face. For highbrow pseudo intellectuals it would be just fine. They would pick this mess apart and marvel at what a wonderfully complex minds they have. Just like they marvel at pig submerged in farmaldehide, somewhat suspicious of a joke being played on them but still keeping a straight face, just in case.
Also if you are working screenwriter you might find it close to home and somewhat amusing despite it's numerous shortcomings. The whole movie forgettable and has 10 minutes of good cinema (mostly in dialog).
I am not sure what it is. May be these guys are too American and should stick to what we know best: Linear stories with Tom Hanks?
You will not miss a thing by skiping this movie.
64 It is ill contrived mess of a movie.
I loved Being John Malkovich (their previous film) but this exercise in non linear originality just falls short,flat and on it's face. For highbrow pseudo intellectuals it would be just fine. They would pick this mess apart and marvel at such a wonderfully complex minds that they have. Just like they marvel at a pig submerged in formaldehyde, somewhat suspicious of a joke being played on them but still keeping a straight face, just in case.
Also if you are working screenwriter you might find it close to home and somewhat amusing despite it's numerous shortcomings. The whole movie forgettable and has 10 minutes of good cinema (mostly in dialog).
I am not sure what it is. May be these guys are too American and should stick to what we know best: Linear stories with Tom Hanks?
You will not miss a thing by skipping this movie.
65 Confused & perplexed
The only folks who could possibly get anything out of this movie might be those who read the book "The Orchid Thief". Everyone else is left guessing and trying to piece each scene together. The acting is good, but there's no continuity in the story line - unless you've had prior knowledge from the book.
66 Not what i was thinking
Ok, I don't know about you but i could not get into this movie it draged on and was just dull to me, It could not keep my attention i turned it off half way into it.Eevn though it has Niclas Cage , Meryl Streep and Chis Cooper who are top names it just didn't do it for me . Maybe i should give it another chance but why bother? One star for trying.sorry
67 So you want to be a screen writer...
Well, I haven't gone too much out of my way to see the really twisted movies of our time, but this one fell into my lap & so I watched it. When it was over, I didn't really know what to think because it messed with my head so much.
To start, you have this guy (Cage) who is supposed to write the screenplay for "The Orchid Thief". His character is developed as your stereotypical creative genius - brilliant, elitist, trying to work out of his depth & intelligence but really suffering as he does so, anti-social, introverted & basically unhappy. People love his work, but you really feel sorry for the poor guy.
It seems simple, but the script keeps adding in such quirky details that your mind is constantly being overstimulated...first off, they have part of the set from "Being John Malcovich" and the actors in their costumes from that set, so your mind wanders to think about that movie for a bit (especially if you've seen it). Then you have this main screenwriter's identical brother enter the plot - a character who Cage is also playing - and you sit there wondering how Cage did these shots where he talks to & wrestles with himself.
And then you start getting drawn into the story of a journalist (Streep) who wrote the book "The Orchid Thief" which the screenwriter is trying to adapt. You learn that her life is obviously the cliche of the successful & wealthy yet incredibly unhappy & empty American. She has everything she should want for a happy life, and yet she keeps wanting more...she wants some sort of passion in her life.
And then, in yet another layer of the story, you get to learn about the actual orchid thief...a redneck type character down in Florida who has an unexpected passion for orchids. He is the only one who seems to be an enviable character because he has some sort of deep fulfillment in his life...and yet he has neither money nor culture nor the admiration of many.
The set-up might seem clear, but the progress of the plotline certainly isn't. The storyline starts interweaving these character's lives in such ways that your head starts hurting trying to figure out if it should be able to happen at all.
And, all through this, the movie is clearly trying to make a point about passion & fulfillment, but what is it? Streep chases after it, but does she actually find it? The main screenwriter is surely the creative genius of the two brothers, but which one would you rather be?
As you try to sort such things out, the plot suddenly twists again to become an action movie - complete with guns & a car chase. This is so unexpected that you leave your questions hanging in mid-air while you try to figure out who you want to "win" seeing that you've become pretty attached to all these characters.
The final kicker, really, was that someone told me that one of the characters was supposed to be imaginary....?
So, yeah, and when you think about the fact that this movie supposedly came out of the screenwriter's assignment to adapt "The Orchid Thief" (in real life) and that this is what he came up with, you begin to marvel at the depths & intricacies of the human mind...or at least I did.
68 What a ride!!!!
Something New, Something Different, Something Great. Cage is fantastic. Well worth the energy and time.
69 If You Didn't Get It, Don't Tell
This really is a brilliant and very original movie, but it evidently isn't for everyone. If your tastes run more to the conventional, this definitely isn't for you. If you like to be challenged with fresh, original work, it's worth a try.
I won't rehash the plot or give away any surprises. Suffice it to say that Adaptation (even the name is brilliant) mixes the real and unreal, the tragic and the comic, in ways that can be very confusing - or very entertaining. Just like a Tilt-O-Wheel, there are circles within circles that may make you dizzy. But just because you don't like that kind of thing doesn't mean it's a bad ride.
Don't necessarily expect this movie to be easy to figure out. I was impressed with the honesty of the fellow who admitted that after viewing it a second time he raised his rating. It seems that many of the reviewers who didn't like this film simply didn't understand it.
70 Great movie, car crashes, brilliant acting & writing
This was a great film, reflexively self referent and conscious (but not self conscious) not only of its screenwriter(s) but also of its audience. Intelligent, daring, brilliant - it was all those things. But, in a twist only Hollywood would enjoy, it also had two of the most authentic, horrifying car crashes ever filmed, not in Bonnie & Clyde slow motion, but in real time, exactly the way they occur, and they were over almost before they happened, leaving death and destruction in their wake. These scenes must have taken forever to film and were on the screen for only the blink of an eye. And, any screenwriter who's ever taken a course from the insufferable Robert McKee will love this film just for its portrayal of him. Filled with gems that require several screenings and a couple of people who can explain the in jokes, this movie should have won more than an Oscar for Crhis Cooper. It should have swept. Cage, Streep and Cage were great and that it did not win a best screenplay Oscar just shows that Hollywood writers can't take a joke.
71 watch something else
Nicolas Cage is brilliant in his interpretation(s) but I can't understand how this movie can get 5 stars... it is boring boring boring and quite ridiculous in some scenes.
72 Boy, don?t blink or go to the bathroom
You leave the room for 5-10 minutes during this movie, go nuke some popcorn, whatever, without clicking the Pause button - and you'll be friggin' lost. It's a twisty, wacko, sometimes confusing, always brilliand combination of oh, I dunno, sometimes it feels like 10 different stories, but it's really only 3. There's a screenwriter hopelessly trying to write a screenplay of The Orchid Thief (a book without a plot). There's the screenwriter nearly giving up and writing about his own difficulties writing the script. And there's his totally annoying twin brother, a doofus, who writes away in the background, distracting his bro, and managing against all odds to write something that scores. Written with wit, cynicism, angst. Cast is stellar, appropriately creepy at times, terrifying (as the Orchid Thief sometimes was; it's a crazy world out there...!), and always wonderful.
Don't miss it - but don't forget to Pause for bathroom breaks!
73 this emporer has no clothes!
Picture this: a real life screenwriter, fresh off a successful "screwy" movie, lands a gig to write the screenplay for an unfilmable picture. Mental paralysis sets in and, surprize! the writer has nothing to deliver at the deadline. The only work he has completed is to have written a few false starts and some commentary of his own dread. O.K., so what's he do? He pitches the movie as a cinematic equivalent to a Seinfeld eposode, but without the wit, pacing or structure. What is offered is a montage of half baked ideas held together by a voice over from the writer himself, narrating his inability to pull the movie off. The writer pitches this as a very clever exercize in making a really bad movie -- but on purpose! He'll past together every film cliche about writer's block known to the writing establishment, including a scene about screen-writing seminars, but make it "crafty"! The film execs naturally panic, but give the movie the green light based on said-writer's previous winner. Critics, loathe to admit that they cannot not understand it, instead howl in praise and annoit this movie as a "masterpiece." The viewer, as usual, is stuck holding the bag, having to pay for this lazy, flimsy, exercize in "pulling the wool over one's eyes."
Having said that, the acting throughout the first 2/3 of the movie is quite good, as if that was enough to sit through this. And there are some funny bits and thoughtful lines. But by the end of the film, the actors themselves cannot keep up with the silly conceit of this movie as it abandons the "writers cramp" theme and, through the guise of having the writers twin brother, a notorious schlock writer, finish the effort by adopting (they call it "adapting" in the movie) a "stupid Hollywood Ending" to sew things up, just like the endings in those dumb "Saturday Night Live" spin-off movies. Ha Ha! What a hoot! So satirical! So edgy!
It's really a shame that Hollywood allows a writer to get away with this sort of garbage. Throughout, you can see that the seeds of an interesting movie are in place, and indeed some poigniant moments are expressed. But a few poigniant moments a movie do not make. Faced with making either no movie or a bad one, the writer and director decide to "go ugly early" and try to palm off this collection of scraps as "tongue-in-cheek", "clever" and "in-sider". Consider yourself forewarned!
74 Great Movie!
I love this movie, to me it was all about the character's decisions about their roles in life, and what a tremendous difference this makes.
The movie's centerpiece was the two twin brothers: Charlie and Donald, identical genetically but miles apart in the way they had chosen to live their lives. At the beginning of the movie was are led to see Donald as frivolous shallow, maybe even a mooch. Charlie appears more serious, more talented but haunted by his own insecurities and neurotic personality, he never seems to be able to realize his potential in any aspect of his life. We hear and see his frustration and despair at this...he can't even meet his own needs for companionship and love.
As the movie progresses we see Donald succeed where Charlie fails, it even seems a bit unfair, Donald hardly seems to deserve his success. At the movie's climax however, we find out the secret of the great difference between the lives of these two identical brothers. Donald made a decision early on that his life belonged to him, where Charlie had decided that his life was to be left to the whim of others. No wonder Charlie sweated in the presence of attractive women, didn't know how to promote his own interests and could hardly make friends; He had decided that all these people's reactions to him would determine his worth and that it would be determined anew every day, a recipe for neurosis.
Identical brother's, different life adaptations, hugely different outcomes. The other characters in the story had adaptations to make; but I saw this movie as being all about the two brothers together hiding in that swamp, where Donald reveals - to Charlie's amazement - that when they were in grammar school he decide that other's would never decide his worth, that this was for him alone, and his decision was going to be in his own favor.
Charlie realized the power of this immediately and after his brother's death you could see the change it brought. What a great message and a great movie.
I never buy movies. Most aren't worth a second viewing. This is one to treasure!
75 Beautiful movie!
My guess the main theme of this movie is the creative process and how difficult and torturous it is. In this case it's about writing a movie script by Charlie Caufman, played by Nicolas Cage. It is very unusual movie about movie about the book. I was surprised to find out that the book 'The Orchid Field' that the movie supposed to be based on is the real book. It makes the movie even more fascinating. You never know with Spike Jonze. I loved references here to his other movie 'Being John Malkovich". The acting is superb but especially by Meryl Streep (as always) and Chris Cooper. The only complain I have that it is sometimes too slow. I am not the one who watches action movies only but in this case this slowness is just not warranted and out of the rhythm of the movie. But in the end it could be just a fault of Charlie Caufman.
76 A good idea that didn't come off
Charlie Kauffman decided to write a screenplay adaptation of Susan Orlean's THE ORCHID THIEF mostly about how impossible it was for him to write an adaptation of it, and while that sounds like it might have been a good idea it actually winds up not working out at all. It's all pretty much the sort of thing you expect from a college creative writing class when a student doesn't have any ideas for an assignment and instead writes about writer's block. Nicolas Cage works hard as Cage, but he's pretty unappealling in his sweatiness. All the movie really has going for it is Meryl Streep in a miraculous turn as Susan Orlean herself, a woman who yearns for transcendance in her daily professional life.
77 Adaptations
This had to be the worst dissapointment I have viewed in a long time. I bought this DVD haven read "The Orchid Thief" which was a great book;much more than I can say for the movie.
I am surprised the author of "The Orchid Thief" approved the script of this movie.
It was slow at the beginning and slow at the end and everywhere in between. It had no imagination and riding on the heels of "The Orchid Thief" it did the book nothing but injustice.
I could not even recommend this movie to my worst enemy.
78 A Wonderful and Bizzare Film
First off, anybody who is evenly remotely interested in writing movies or working in the movie buisiness should go watch this movie right now. Charlie Kauffman (the semi-fictional one) is one of the most endearing, most real characters I've ever seen in a film. Everything in this movie shines so brightly, it's a wonder why this didn't win more oscars. Chris Cooper and Meryl Streep are also very good, but the best performance easily comes from Cage. The script by the real Charlie Kauffman is wonderful and begins to twist in on itself, so much so that in order to finish the screenplay, Kauffman had to give into traditional Hollywood cliche themes (drugs, sex, violence, profound realizations). This movie is the best illustration of a screenwriter I've ever seen (then again, how many movies are about screenwriters?). This is highly recommended for anyone who wants to think during their movie instead of being entertained
79 what a waste of time..
The movie is so lame and boring!! And what irritated me the most was the character played by Nicolas Cage - Charles Kaufman. He is such a pathetic loser, halfway thru I wanted to jump into the movie and slap him hard !
This is one of those attempts to show a messed up movie and characters, try and make a mix of fantasy-n-reality. Some directors know how to do it and it works, but Spike Jonze is not one of them.
And to top it all, the ONLY special which the DVD contains is the theatrical trailer!!!!!!!!! Nothing else. Run away, faaar faaar away.
Hmmm..one thing which I wanted to say that there are 2 car crash sequences in this movie which were like - friggin' amazing. Gave me quite a jolt. Just mentioned, that's all...
80 Good movie, horrible DVD
The movie is entertaining and interesting but the DVD offers nothing but the movie. There are NO special features.
81 The people that hate this movie can't even spell 'reason'.
(...).
Great script. Great actors. Great director. Very well-made film. Hey, if you're intelligent, you'll love this movie.
82 Worst movie I've seen in about 10 years
I expected to like this because I think "Being John Malkovich" is one of the most creative movies I've ever seen. After the first 15 minutes or so of "Adaptation," I just thought it was a slow-starter. Same thing after about an hour. I don't know why my wife and I watched the whole thing, but we wish we hadn't. What a waste of time.
"Being John Malkovich" has bizarre elements, but that is not what makes it successful. It is thought-provoking, surprising, and hilarious. After watching "Adaptation," I had the impression that the creators decided to recapture the bizarreness of "Malkovich" without its well-thought story and rich humor.
83 Like trying to see the Sistine Chapel in one glance
It's fantastic. Profound. But I'd have to watch it twice in order to digest everything it threw at me, it was mildly disorienting.
84 Worst movie of the year!
Went to see this movie as the critics all gave raving reviews. First suspected something might be wrong when I saw there was no one else in the theatre. Walked out halfway through the film (something I have not ever done before).
If you think Hollywood and the movie making business is the center of the universe, and thoughly enjoy stories about screwed up people - then you might like this movie. If on the other hand you see making movies as only a very small part of the real world, and if you don't enjoy mucking through the details of messed up lives - then this movie is a waste of time.
Frankly, even a "1 star" rating for this movie is too high!
85 It gets better with every viewing.
It just does! For me, anyway. I found this one to be one of the most funny, intelligent and entertaining movies of the last years. It should get to the status of classic with the passage of time, but that is not for me to decide. Nicolas Cage is simply hilarious in his two roles (Donald K. is awesome) and the script (is there a script??, kidding) is very intelligent and funny and serious at the same time. There is comedy, drama, suspense and a good soundtrack, too. Go check this little gem out, especially if you like good dialogue. Brilliant!
86 In Originality League of Its Own (3.5 stars)
To fully appreciate "Adaptation", you need to know something in advance. Some people from the movie really do exist: script writer Charlie Kaufman (he even roughly resembles Nicolas Cage who plays him), the New Yorker journalist Susan Orlean and the Florida orchid thief named Laroche about whom she wrote a book. "Adaptation" was originally meant to be a film version of the book. BUT, apparently, Kaufman had problems with it (maybe trying too hard to match his and director Spike Jonze's first hit "Being John Malkovich")... So he helped himself out by letting fantasy take it from there. The film thus has both real and 'unreal' characters and events, shifts back and forth in time like crazy and at the end changes completely from a light comedy to a would-be generic thriller. "Adaptation" owes much to Hollywood -- it adores it and mocks it at the same time. Chris Cooper got Oscar for his supporting role of Laroche, also nominated were Meryl Streep as Orlean (with this 13th nomination she surpassed the legendary Katharine Hepburn) and Cage for his leading two-role of Charlie and his thought-up twin Donald. Apart from the wild originality and acting, though, "Adaptation" has not much substance. Still, it's worth checking out.
87 Maybe a computer wrote this movie
In the 1960's I read a rather minor science fiction story about a frustrated writer. During the course of the story he developed a computer program that would generate random sentences. He then turned the computer loose to print millions of lines every day hoping that a novel would eventually come out. He had lots of frustrations--including the computer writing 3/4 of a wonderfully good novel. Unfortunately, he wasn't a good enough author to finish it.
The last two lines of the story were a repeat of the lines that began it--giving the impression of a computer writing a story about a computer writing a story...
I hadn't thought about this story in years but after watching this movie I did. And one of the thoughts was that I liked the old story better.
88 don't be fooled, this movie is TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!
like many unfortunate souls out there, i had heard how great adaptation was, blah blah blah. i rented it and proceeded to utterly waste two hours of my life. i'm writing this for one reason only: to try to stop you from doing the same. believe me, even bill and ted's is a better film. this movie is pathetic.
89 A beautifully blurred line
From the brilliantly warped mind of screenwriter Charlie Kaufman comes "Adaptation." This film didn't get all that much play in the theaters and true, it's not for everyone. But "Adaptation" is destined for classic-status. You've probably heard something about it or else you wouldn't be here looking at this page. For a synopsis you can look just about anywhere, so I won't bore you with that. But in the likely chance you are here because you are confused and looking for information, that I can help you with. I won't give any spoilers, I'll just help focus the line between reality and whatever dark corner of Kaufman's mind this came from.
True: "The Orchid Hunter" is a non-fiction book by author Susan Orlean about an eccentric Floridian named John LaRoche who was convicted of attempting to steal orchids from the Fakahatchee swamp.
True: Charlie Kaufman was hired by Colombia to write a film adaptation of the book. "Adaptation" is that film.
True: Nicholas Cage plays Charlie Kaufman, the real-life screenwriter of this film and the film Being John Malkovich.
False: Charlie Kaufman has a twin brother named Donald Kaufman. Kaufman does not have an identical twin brother.
False: Donald Kaufman co-write "Adaptation" and wrote a script called "The Three" that is coming out in 2004. Obviously, if Donald Kaufman doesn't exist he didn't write a screenplay. However, this is still worthy of mentioning just in case you noticed the cast bios on the DVD - it lists Donald Kaufman as a writer with "Adaptation" and "The Three" as credits.
True: Robert McKee is a leading screenwriting teacher with a bestselling book entitled "Story."
As far as the story itself goes, you'll have to discern fantasy and fiction for yourself. But if you pay careful attention to what McKee says it's fairly obvious at which point in the film fiction enters ("Wow them in the end...").
Lastly, it's been stated that this film has a cop-out in the end. I can't believe someone would actually say that if they remotely paid attention to the film. It's the entire point of the movie! (And Kaufman's philosophy on story-writing.) Kaufman is anti-Hollywood and anti-formula. So clearly there is a great deal of rhetoric and irony involved in his choice of the ending, especially when you consider McKee's words to Kaufmann. It's not a cop-out - it's a brilliant slap in the face to Hollywood.
90 Better than Being John Malkovich, but it is no Barton Fink.
Spike Jones is not entirely original or as weird as you would expect. Both his films "Being John Malkovich" and "Adaptation" have a lot in common with the Coen Brothers work. No more is this evident than in "Adaptation" which has a lot of plot elements very similar to Barton Fink - successful phobic screenwriter can not write his new screenplay, lounges around in his bed most of the time, goes out to find inspiration for his dull storyline, seeks advice from a screenplay expert, ends up entangled in a murder mystery. So "Adaptation" is certainly far from original although it may appear that way.
Basically the plot is pretty much a simple one and not as convoluted as "Being John Malkovich" although it is a story within a story, however it can be appreciated and viewed as just a story about a neurotic screenplay writer Charlie Kaufman and his twin brother Donald Kaufman (Both played really well by Nicolas Cage) who live together. Charlie is trying to write a screenplay about a book called "The Orchid Thief" written by Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) about a cultivator of Orchids John Laroche (Chris Cooper). Eventually the four meet up with disastrous consequences.
The story is never dull and certainly does move along at a fairly good pace. The interesting part of the characters is Charlie and Donald who are both a little different in their own respects and you can see that Cage is having a lot of fun on the screen. Be warned, the film does turn a little nasty and there are many sad elements to the plot line, but overall it is wickedly funny and the acting is on top form. It is an enjoyable little piece of weirdness and still remains pretty mainstream even though it is far from conventional Hollywood.
Good film, just not that original if you have seen Barton Fink.
91 A Serene Look at Creativity and Life.
Adaptation is one of the most beautiful films I have seen in a long time, one that touched me deeply with its subtle and totally original style,a great achievement from the talent of Spike Jonze,who amazed audiences few years back with his brilliantly surreal Being John Malkovich.
In Adaptation as in Being John Malkovich the reality,fantasy,dreams and fiction collide in more ways than one,giving the viewer a unique experience that is totally rewarding.
Charlie and Donald Kaufman the real life writers of Being John Malkovich return in Adaptation both as the real writers of the film and as 'supposedly' fictionalized characters.
Charlie is assigned to adapt for the big screen a real life non fiction book,The Orchid Thief by bestselling author Susan Orlean, played in a great comeback to top form by Meryl Streep.
The book is about an Orchid thief, a smart yet at the same time naive redneck who has a complusive obsessive behavior to collect things. At first Streep, who is assigned to follow the thief, played perfectly by Chris Cooper, and write a piece about him for the New Yorker, is sceptical,detached from her subject and even bored.But as she slowly enters a world totally alien to her, it awakens another person inside,one that becomes totally aware of the empitness in her own life, an experience that will forever change her world.
Charlie Kaufman in the meantime is trying in vain to get the right approach to his script, in between writer's block, anxiety attacks and self doubts and deprecation. His twin brother Donald on the other hand with his limited intellect but determined and sweet dedication is also writing, a commercial slasher film.The dialogue between the two brothers during the stages of their writing, and their obvious differences, is a great insight into creativity at work with a lot of added humour.There is too a clever reference from Jonze and the Kaufman brothers about the condition and treatment of writers by Hollywood.
The two brothers are played by Nicholas Cage so well!!You will be excused in some scenes for believing even for a second that Charlie and Donald are played by two different actors. This is how great Cage was, moving flawlessly but with substantial emotional and psychological input between the anxiety Charlie and the contentment of Donald.
The paths of scriptwriter,his subject and her 'thief' inevitably collide,and there are some twists: The last part of the film although at first glance might seem totally out of place giving the tone of the film, it is really the fantasy again appearing in the mix, and as the credits roll, you will come to appreciate that part very much.
The film is very serene, philosophical but never overbearingly so,almost spiritual, about the 'essence' of creativity,choices,deep changes,realizations,love,support,and basically life itself.
Even when the thin line between real life,dreams,fantasy,and fiction is often blurred, it does not matter as much as the genuis performances,direction, the originality, and subsequently the message of the film.
Do not miss Adaptation on all accounts!
92 Is it real? Or just halfway real?
First of all, I think this movie is absolutely brilliant. It's unlike anything I've ever seen which is unsurprising since Kauffman and Jonze's previous film, "Being John Malkovich" invoked similar emotions.
So it's the story of Charlie Kauffman (real guy) attempting to write an adapted screenplay of a book called "The Orchid Theif" (real book). Throughout the movie, Kauffman is convinced to instead write the screenplay about himself attempting to write the adaptation rather than writing the adaptation itself. Which turns out to be the movie that you're watching. As far as I can tell, the real Charlie Kauffman had actually attempted to write the film adaptation for the Orchid Theif, but after consistant writer's block, he wrote the film Adaptation with him as the lead. But what about the last third of the movie? I think the real Kauffman might have heeded the advice given to the fake Kauffman in the movie, "Plot doesn't matter as long as you 'wow' the audience in the end." I think this gave the real Kauffman inspiration on how to end his 'true story' with fictional events. It's nerve-racking, I know. But it's so brilliant I couldn't help but love every minute of it.
93 Is the average movie (re)viewer a total moron?
I won't ruin the end of the movie for those that haven't seen it but I will comment on the reaction to it. Those that see it as a major change of style and tone and are disappointed aren't paying attention to the movie. How could you possibly miss why this happens? Were you sleeping through the film? Were you lamenting over the fact that you had to listen to dialogue rather than watch scantily clad women and tricked-out cars? Were you missing the infernal pairing of Bruckheimer and Bay that keeps you living? Honestly take a look even in the beginning credits and realize that this movie is written by Charlie Kaufman and his (nonexistent) twin Donald Kaufman and you'll realize why the style changes. But oh well. While I laugh at all that comes in that section these viewers can sit and mutter about how things didn't pan out as they like.
94 An adaptation about an adaptation?
This is one of the most original and wonderfull movies I have seen in a long time. This movie takes the whole process of adapting a book into a movie and makes that into a movie. Sound confusing? Well it kind of is, but it is more than worth the time it takes to sort it out. The mistake most people make when crticizing this film is that they think it is about the book Charilie is trying to adapt, when in fact it is more about how adapting a book has become a standard process with predictable outcomes.
The movie starts with the initial excitement of being able to adapt a book into a movie, then segues into the difficulties one has in getting it right. Finally, it is a commentary on how Hollywood basically makes the same movie regardless of how the book might turn out. Charlie completely mocks this process with the way he ends the movie (No, I am not going to tell you how it ends).
when it seems like every single movie put out by Hollywood is nearly identical, it is refreshing for somebody to come out and take a stand against that crap and show what the medium is about.
The performances are fantastic. Nicolas Cage has been making some awful movies lately, but this performance more than makes up for the utter crap he has been a part of.
This movie is to be savoured and watched multiple times. Just do not believe what you are watching is all there is.
95 Second time's a charm
It took me two tries to really love this movie. In my previous review I complained about the "stupid action ending", and wrote that "an original structure is not worth much without good content to put in it, and this is a case that demands better". I also complained about the stereotypical neurotic writer. I gave it a lower score of 4.2 stars - something I tend to give to great movies that are marred by a blatant clich̩.
In retrospect, those complaints were justified by a first approach to the material. Like 8 1/2, a movie that has a similar recursive narrative structure (that is to say, a story about a story about a story, all happening at the same time), Adaptation benefits highly from a second viewing, especially since it lacks a commentary track, or any other material for that matter. This is always a sad state of affairs.
One of the stories concerns a New Yorker journalist who talks with an orchid fanatic named John Laroche in order to write a book called "The Orchid Thief" (a book which, by the way, exists). Another story, perhaps our "main story", is about screenwriter Charlie Kaufman's desperate attempt to write a screenplay about "The Orchid Thief", years later. Yet another story, implicit, is that of the real Charlie Kaufman's desperate attempt to write a movie about "The Orchid Thief", punctuated by a couple of clips and actresses from real life.
All these stories, as I mentioned, unravel simultaneously at different levels. So far it's much like 8 1/2, which was about Fellini trying to make a movie about a director who is trying to make a movie about his own life. The difference is that Adaptation. has another structure, horizontal this time, which explains the things I complained about. Since the explanation would be a spoiler, I won't give it. It reverberates the explicit themes of the movie : the difference between movie fiction and reality, the nature of passion, trying to grasp the identity of things, and perhaps also force.
Charlie Kaufman: I don't want to cram in sex or guns or car chases or characters learning profound life lessons or growing or coming to like each other or overcome obstacles to succeed in the end. The book isn't like that, and life isn't like that, it just isn't.
96 No good
The one truth in this movie is when screenwriter Charlie reviles himself for turning a screenplay about The Orchid Thief into a screenplay about himself. I agree! Cage as Charlie is embarrassing - he seems to be trying to copy Woody Allen. The only good moments here are provided by Streeps and Cooper (Streeps is especially good). The rest is a waste of time. And the concluding segment, where Charlie gives in to his twin Donald and produces an "action" ending, is just silly. Very disappointing! I had high hopes and simply don't understand the enthusiasm others have expressed.
97 Be prepared for the bizarre twists.
I'm not here to bash the film; I personally thought everyone played a dynamic part, thus making it quite intricate.
Don't watch this movie if you're in a good mood, it'll only leave you depressed and questioning the characters of your friends and wondering how short your life is.
N. Cage did an excellent job playing a double of himself, but I wasn't prepared for the twists and turns of his character or Meryl Streep's character. It was almost like something out of Final Destination 1 and 2.
The movie did a great job of keep me guessing, and even though I was depressed by a lot of the scenes I was drawn back to following the storyline and the characters until the end.
98 Perhaps the best movie ever made
Why?
This film is a just filled with universal truths. It says so much and really reaches out to the viewer and makes him or her consider his or her own life. See the movie to understand.
N.B.: I have found that men enjoy this movie slightly more than do women.
99 BEING BIZARRE
Maybe it's a case of 'liking this sort of thing', but I found "Adaptation" to be, like the writer and director's "Being John Malkovich", just too complicated and silly to be enjoyable, with a plotline running in and out of the lines of ironic boundary. This is even a little less impressive as it concerns the reliable dramatic device of a man and his twin brother, who may or may not be a figment of the other's imagination. Nicholas Cage, Meryl Streep, and Chris Cooper offer dynamic performances in the principal leads but it's the increasingly bizarre and emotionless story which gives the thing an impenetrably chilly air.
100 An obsessive quest for love... depravity its grail.
Beautiful Orchids. Articulate toothless rednecks. Sad, middle-aged female magazine writers seeking fulfillment in their barren lives. Copycat twin screenwriters, one that obsesses over an unattainable woman. And too many writers fouling the broth...
You gotta figure that if Charlie Kaufman is involved, self-celebration (inserting himself as twin Kaufmans in a screenplay based on a book written by someone else) will be the main course. Wasn't Kaufman the same guy who envisioned and penned 'Being John Malkovich?' It seems he's not quite comfortable just 'Being Charlie Kaufman'. He succeeds in celebrating the self on a few different levels, but not to the ultimate benefit of the film. Perhaps his purpose is to live vicariously through his characters' characters. They called that stuff 'cosmic duality' in the Modern Lit classes in college, but I think that was just a fancy name for a masturbatory act of the writer's ego.
I felt used by the Kaufman brothers and their 'duality' artifice; too distracted by the novelty of the character concentrics and plot twists to wonder what exactly was their relationship. Like a conman's pigeon, I got pulled in all the way, curious to see things play out. Except that at film's end I was consumed by the need to have a shower; to scrub my skin until was clean again.
I was lured also by the Meryl Streep character, down the slow-moving, fetid swamp where The Orchid lies. Once there I became isolated and abandoned, discovering that she-- like so many people in real life-- first captivated me and later disgusted me with the choices she made and the person she had become.
Chris Cooper deserved the 2003 Best Supporting Oscar for his performance as the complex, yet simple Peter Pan who never-growed-up. I found it fascinating that the choices he made in his Life appeared cryptic --until he explained how he arrived at them.
A real challenge for the screenwriter would be to conjure up a sequel. However, the characters left standing aren't appealing enough for me to go back down that creek again.
