Rating: 
Summary: "Adaptation is a beautiful process"
Review: In this film, adaptation has two meanings. The confusing but brilliant story follows a Hollywood screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage). Who is struggling miserably to adapt Susan Orlean's "The Orchid Thief" to a screenplay. With his twin brother Donald (also Cage) who also becomes a screenwriter, both their stories blend in beautifully when they help each other escape the swamp from Orlean and John Laroche (Chris Cooper) who are armed with rifles. Adaptation comes with a fantastic screenplay written by the real Charlie Kaufman. Chris Cooper won an academy award for best supporting actor. One of the year's best.
Rating:
Summary: Ummm...different; enjoyable if you know the background
Review: I'd hate to have been plopped in front of a screen to watch 'Adaptation' without... ...having seen 'Being John Malkovich'... ...knowing of screenwriter Charlie Kaufman's intense self-loathing... ...knowing that with Spike Jonze at the helm, anything can happen (and usually does)... ...understanding the cult that has grown up around screenwriting guru Robert McKee. With all that as background, it's a fun movie. Without that knowledge, it'd probably be like navigating Tokyo without a map. Pretty close to impossible. One comment about the action itself: for a movie that starts slowly and deals with the ostensibly sedate subject of flowers, Jonze has inserted the two most realistic, violent car crashes ever caught on film. And that alone tells you all you need to know about the unexpected road this movie travels down over the last hour.
Rating:
Summary: Breaks most of the rules, but in the end it works quite well
Review: Picture this, you write a really clever screenplay called Being John Malcovich, you manage to get it produced as a movie because you've done some clever things like manage to allow actors to play themselfs, and the story idea just rocks. To follow up on that movie you're given an assignment to write a film adaptation about a bad novel about flowers. Was this the situation Charlie Kaufman was really in? Who knows, probably, at any rate he turned the screenplay adaptation of The Orchid Theif (which is exactly what the script to Adaptation claims it is) into one of the craziest films ever made. Kaufan breaks all the rules of screenwriting including writing himself in as the lead character. The story is a mix of fact, fiction and part book to film adaptation (literally) it sounds impossible, but Kaufman pulls it off, the end result is one of the best movies made.
Rating: 
Summary: Where to start?
Review: This movie was so slow and long. Once you finally reach the last 45 minutes, you have reached the best part of the whole movie. Just let this movie run while you are busy doing something else.
Rating:
Summary: Do You Have To Be On Something To Enjoy This?
Review: I think somebody snuck the wrong DVD into the case when I viewed this because I seem to have seen a completely different film than everyone else here. I feel like the kid shouting "The emperor has no clothes!" Maybe this is like modern art. It looks like rubbish, but people will still find a way to pull out some complex deep meaning from it. In my opinion, if you have to watch a film several times and do mental gymnastics to find its redeeming qualities, there's something very wrong. However, if you're the type who likes to watch artsy, overlooked films and feel superior to the masses for having done so then you just might like this one. Personally, I think it might deserve the award for worst film of all time. Very few films are bad enough to actually make me angry for having watched it, but this is one of the few. It was beyond boring and gave me no reason to care what happened to any of the characters. If it had at least been weird I might've enjoyed it, but this was just boring and nothing more. I kept expecting it to get better but it never did. I cannot say enough about how bad this movie was, and I was quite stunned that Meryl Streep was involved. Please read my one star rating as -10 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: Different but not necessarily good
Review: It's been a month since I saw this movie and I still have the same feelings. I didn't like it, because it fails to deliver a clear message to the viewer, who in this instance would like to know why some things happen. Some of the scenes are very graphic (i.e. car accident) and shatter the viewer. I personally feel that few too many events lack cohesiveness and become extreme for no apparent reason.
Pros: Good actors, good performances
Cons: A movie that will leave you with a big question mark
Rating:
Summary: Almost, but not quite, Excellent...
Review: The first 3/4 of this movie are superb. You're sitting there and you're thinking, "Yes.. this is why I love movies." And then it turns into a standardized piece of crap. Now, I understand what the writer/director are doing here.. I get that that's a conscious decision.. that the "other" writer is writing that last part, and that it's almost a parody of all the things the "first" writer didn't want in his movie.. there's a car chase, guns, drugs, sex, straightforward narrative, etc. But, what I don't get is, why not make the whole movie great, instead of going to all the trouble of making the first 75% so good, only to cop out on the ending? Why do that??? Definitely worth seeing, but brace yourself for an unsatisfying conclusion...
Rating: 
Summary: ¿The Orchid Thief¿ and ¿Adaptation¿
Review: I come to this discussion from an odd vantage point. I am a Florida horticulturist who also dabbles in screenwriting. I loved The Orchid Thief. I read Susan Orlean's descriptions of Florida and just kept nodding my head. She got it right. John Laroche was not only a character that I understood, but I was raised by the guy! I'm not kidding. There's so much of my father in Laroche that he immediately seemed like family. For a time my father was obsessed with crotons, for example. He obsessively collected every variety. Then one day he was done with crotons and he became obsessed with The Rubik's Cube. Susan's reluctance to accept a single orchid also hit home. I've always felt this way, knowing that if I had one, I'd want them all. I simply will not grow orchids. Sure, I enjoy them at the orchid shows, but that's where they stay. It's not the prices, either; I could always sneak over to my neighbor's shade-house and snitch all the pups I could slit. But I'd no more bring one home than I'd take my first snort of cocaine. Some things are best left along. I commend Susan Orlean for exposing the truth about orchid addiction. In summery, The Orchid Thief confirmed everything I've always suspected about orchid fanatics. I loved this book! And so we come to "Adaptation". The first thing I need to say is that I've extremely glad I saw the film before reading the book. Why hadn't I read the book? Probably had something to do with my general reluctance to get involved with orchids. Anyway, it's easy to understand why those who read and loved The Orchid Thief would be put off by "Adaptation". The film isn't so much an adaptation as it is a mutation. The thing is, I can't recall another film where within the first few minutes I knew that I was the target viewer. "Adaptation" was brilliant, cynical and funny, and immediately found a place on my list of all-time favorite films.
Charlie Kaufman (as portrayed by Nicolas Cage) is no less obsessive than Laroche; it's just that he is obsessed with himself, with his insecurities and his difficulties in approaching women. He loves the idea of adapting the screenplay, not because he has an interest in orchids, but because he loves the idea of creating something beautiful and simple, without the usual Hollywood clichés. Identical-twin brother Donald (also portrayed by Nicolas Cage) is the opposite personality type. When carefree Donald decides to write a screenplay, Robert McKee becomes his guru, Story his bible. His enthusiasm is such that he doesn't care that his screenplay is hopelessly clichéd. While Charlie anguishes over writing a screenplay that does justice to Susan's book, Donald is having the time of his life with his ridiculous script, "The 3". The truth of the matter is that any time a book, any book, is adapted to film, a uniquely new organism is created. Even the truest adaptation of a book is not going to be the original book. And, more often than not, the screenwriter, director and actors will insert their own interpretation/vision or political/social convictions, or else the decision will be made to make the story more commercial. "Adaptation" has great fun in showing the possible paths: Charlie, self-absorbed; Donald, clichéd. Just watch from the moment Charlie invites Donald to help him finish the script and count the movie clichés. It's great fun, and I'm sure I didn't notice them all. Sure, many who loved Orchid Thief will say that "Adaptation" has little to do with the book, but remember that very little in the book actually had anything to do with Laroche's story. And most of the Laroche moments are actually included in the film. Besides, Susan interjected herself into book, so why shouldn't Charlie? Would it have been possible to write a script that was truer to the book? Of course. The script could have opened with the various orchid growers struggling to save their plants from the approaching Hurricane Andrew. No doubt Spike Jonze could have done some great stuff with visuals of growers struggling to remove plants from shade houses in 100+ mph winds. From there, we would see Laroche's destroyed nursery and the beginnings of his scheme to poach ghost orchids. I believe that this would have worked, but would have resulted in a completely forgettable film. Well, I think that's enough for now. There's an orchid show at my local mall today. Suppose I'll wander over and look around. Promise you this: none of the orchids are coming home with me. Sarah Mankowski
Rating:
Summary: A Prism Lens
Review: Other reviewers discuss plot and characters. Just let me encourage you to continue to watch past the deliberately uncomfortable and slow beginning. This movie is an exciting departure from anything you've seen. It's like looking at a movie through a prism--or a kaleidoscope--reflections and refractions everywhere. Engages the viewer, respects the audience.
Rating:
Summary: Funny and interesting--both in a weird way
Review: If you are willing to suspend disbelief and you're into meta-references, then _Adaptation_ is for you. This film is about the making of a film, an adaptation of Susan Orlean's book _The Orchid Thief_. Nic Cage, looking unhappier and more disheveled than I've ever seen him (even in _Leaving Las Vegas_) plays twin brothers: One who is tortured by his dedication to screenwriting purity, the other who can't fill his screenplay with enough cinematic cliches. Meryl Streep is Susan Orlean, and Chris Carter the scuzzy but charming orchid thief she interviews (and more) for her book. The film isn't hard to follow if you have the time and energy to concentrate. But it _does_ require time and energy, which might be why some people grew bored with it. However, if you're one of those folks who bemoan the takeover of film-making by Jerry Bruckheimer shoot-'em-up chaos, then _Adaptation_ should be a refreshing change for you.
| 
