Rating: 
Summary: Clever and Creative...Then Boring and Ridiculous
Review: Screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage) is adapting Susan Orlean's novel "The Orchid Thief" for the screen. But he is stumped. The film executive (Tilda Swinton) who has entrusted him with the job is growing impatient. But Charlie can't figure out how make a story about flowers come alive as a movie. In desperation, he turns to his twin brother Donald (Nicolas Cage) for advice. Donald, who is also a screenwriter, unapologetically writes action-packed recycled screenplays that will sell and doesn't quite understand his brother's fear that he will not be able to do justice to orchids. Charlie spends all of his waking hours pining over "The Orchid Thief". He becomes obsessed with its author, Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep). And then it hits him. "The Orchid Thief" is about flowers and those who pursue them obsessively. But he must write about what he cares about. He cares about the book's author, Susan Orlean. And he must write about what he knows. He knows about himself and his struggle to write this screenplay. So he will write a screenplay about writing a screenplay, and about Susan Orlean writing the book, and about the obsessive pursuit of orchids. In other words, he will write this movie.No one could ever accuse "Adaptation" of lacking creativity. It is a supremely reflexive film that moves back and forth between Charlie Kaufman's efforts to write his screenplay and Susan Orlean's efforts to write her article and book about a toothless scheming orchid thief named John Laroche three years earlier. "Adaptation" was directed by Spike Jonze and written by Charlie Kaufman. Name sound familiar? Screenwriter Kaufman has put himself -or part of himself- in the movie, and he has also created a twin brother for himself, who seems to represent a different aspect of his character. He has blended fact and fiction to the point that they are indistinguishable. How much of fictional Charlie's trouble writing the screenplay reflects real Charlie's experience we do not know, but both Charlies seem to have written the same screenplay in the end. Susan Orlean related her experiences in writing "The Orchid Thief" in her book, but the movie fictionalizes her character and actions from that point on. There are real people playing themselves in the movie, but those people are all actors. There are actors playing real people -Nicolas Cage as Charlie Kaufman, Meryl Streep as Susan Orlean, Chris Cooper as John Laroche- but those people do fictional things in the film. And there are the usual actors playing fictional characters, although some of the fictional characters seem to be metaphors for real things. And all this is assembled into a reasonably coherent film. There have been films made about film-making before. And films that draw attention to their own artifice. But I think it is safe to say that there has never been a film about writing the screenplay for the very film that you are watching, which is actually an adaptive screenplay of a book on which the movie/screenplay is supposed to be based. It sounds impossible. Apparently it isn't. The problem I had with "Adaptation" is that once the novelty wore off, I found very little of interest. I spent the first half of the film marveling at the author's cleverness and pondering who and what was real and what isn't. But by the second half of the film I had that figured out, and I became profoundly bored. I found that the characters aren't really interesting. It's just what's done with them that is interesting. And once you get that, there's nothing else. The story just spins out of control as the film goes on and loses all credibility. I'm sure that's intended to be funny, but I found it tedious. I think some of the events in "Adaption"'s final chapter are supposed to be metaphorical. But by then I didn't care. Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, and Chris Cooper are all great actors, but I don't think their roles in "Adaptation " are especially challenging. I was pleased to see Tilda Swinton in a film, even if it's a small role. She is so luminous and talented, and we see her so seldom. "Adaptation" is a very interesting film to think about. But I'm afraid it's more interesting to think about than it is to watch. Students of film will want to see this one because it is one of the most reflexive films in cinematic history and one of the loopiest screenplays. But even though I used to study film, I barely made it through the second half of "Adaptation".
Rating: 
Summary: A breath of fresh air
Review: There are many things about this film that immediately set it apart from the constant barrage of mindless drivel that we are subjected to these days, courtesy of Hollywood. First and foremost is the film's originality. This has to be one of the most refreshingly original screenplays I have come across in my years of avid film watching. Ironically enough, originality is one of the film's main themes, one that the main character struggles with, and ultimately it is originality that places this film at the top of the heap.
Equally impressive is the superb acting. My respect and admiration go to Nicholas Cage, whom I have never been a fan of until this film. His performance in dual roles in Adaptation is nothing short of flawless. As for Meryl Streep, we have come to expect the sort of performance she turns in. Finally, Chris Cooper, completely deserving of his Best Supporting Actor Oscar, makes it impossible for us to imagine anyone else playing his character, he becomes John Laroche.
I will not get into details or a summary of the plot, as this is one film that you just need to see for yourself. It seamlessly integrates aspects of comedy, introspection, drama, parody and satire. Just when the inundation of recycled ideas and countless sequels to movies that should never have been made in the first place had me losing faith in originality in film, Adaptation comes along to save the day.
My only warning comes from what I have percieved to be a love/hate reaction to this film. People seem to be split one way or the other, with no middle ground. So if you rent this film based on this review and hate it, that doesn't mean I led you astray, it only means you didn't get the joke.
Rating: 
Summary: Loved parts of this movie, absolutely hated others.
Review: *Minor Spoiler Ahead* Instead of recapping the plot, I'll just say what I liked and didn't like about this movie. First of all, the acting was great. Especially Cage. (I never thought I would say that before about him!). The first two thirds of the movie were hilarious, bleak, and I eagerly awaited the ending. I thought for an instant that I was on the verge of seeing something really innovative and thought provoking. Unfortunately I then saw the ending, and felt insulted.
Here is why: I wanted this to be the movie Kaufman had planned originally: a movie where the protagonist had no ambition, where not much happened, and nobody was "enlightened" or learned anything. That would have been daring. Instead, the end of the aforementioned elements (and a car chase and shootout!). This is supposed to be clever and ironic, presumably. We're supposed to chuckle about it. I had my hopes up for a movie that might actually challenge me and make me think. Or at least be interesting enough to leave me pondering. But no, people don't want to think these days. We just want to have comfort in whatever way we can get it, even if it involves chuckling to ourselves and feeling self-satisfied. You know that feeling of getting an in-joke? That seems to be what this movie is about. Well leave me out of it. Instead of this movie, I highly recommend Fellini's 8 1/2. It is both entertaining and challenging, but isn't intended to leave you feeling smug after you watch it.
Rating:
Summary: <GASP>
Review: BRILLIANT! NOTHING MORE TO BE SAID... ONE OF, IF NOT THE MOST, CLEVER AND CUNNING ACHIEVEMENTS IN MOVIE HISTORY!
Rating: 
Summary: Fantastic characters
Review: From the very first scene of this film, I was interested and curious as to what each character would do next. Chris Cooper was fully deserving of his Academy Award for this, and Nicolas Cage and Meryl Streep were deserving of their nominations. Chris Cooper portrayed an obsessed orchid hunter without his front teeth. If for no other reason, see this film because of his role. This is not something that would be appropriate for children (not that they would enjoy it anyway). Its R rating reflects language, some brief sexuality (including some nudity), brief intense violent images, and some drug use. Adaptation had some of the best characters I've seen in a long time. I would have given it five stars, but it kindof got a little ridiculous near the end. Other than that though, you're in for a real treat with Adaptation.
Rating:
Summary: Very good, very clever
Review: I'm not entirely sure how to describe Adaptation or how to talk about it. In no way is this a conventional movie. So many things are going on and the film does not follow a simple plot structure. We have Nicolas Cage playing Charlie Kaufman (the real life screenwriter of Adaptation and Being John Malkovich). Charlie Kaufman is adapting a screenplay from Susan Orlean's book The Orchid Thief. Kaufman is struggling with this adaptation and discusses this with his brother Donald (also played by Cage). But here's the rub: Donald Kaufman does not exist. He is a figment of Charlie's imagination. Donald is at work on a screenplay, but a more conventionally Hollywood screenplay. We see Charlie begin to write himself into the screenplay he is working on (and that we are watching). This is one part of the movie and is interspersed throughout the film. In other parts of the movie, Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) is researching and writing her book "The Orchid Thief". She meets and listens to the stories told by her subject, Laroche (Chris Cooper). She accompanies Laroche as he hunts for his passion: a rare orchid that is only able to be found in the swamps of Florida. It seems that the scenes with Orlean are what Kaufman is writing into his screenplay, but Charlie is unable to keep his own life (and Donald's) out of the screenplay as well. What I had expected to be an adaptation of The Orchid Thief is, in fact, an account of adapting the Orchid Thief. But there is more. If you look at the credits, you see that Donald Kaufman is credited as a screenwriter for Adaptation. Considering he is a fictional character, this is rather strange (stranger still that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences maintained the fiction in the film and nominated Donald along with Charlie Kaufman for an Oscar for the screenplay). This actually works, though. When watching the movie, pay attention to the scenes involving Donald Kaufman and the screenplay that he is trying to write. This is more important than you might think and may help you to "get" the joke/twist the movie throws at you near the end. Even though repeat viewing would give me a greater understanding of the film, this isn't something that I think I want to watch over and over again. Is Adaptation a good movie? Yes. Was it worthy of all the awards it won? Yes. Did I like it? Again, yes. It is also not the type of movie that I would watch over and over again. Positive review for this one. It is worth a rental at the very least.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't bother!
Review: This is a horribly disappointing film. Reviewers that give this thing more than two stars are doing a prospective buyer no favor. Cage remains his usual one-dimensional self. The story is...boring. Very few of us are going to hang in there with a tale of a flower. Trust me on this one guys! The "twin brothers" (Cage in both roles) are confusing, as Cage is still Cage. Set your sights higher and buy any other new release. You can only improve your shopping cart.
Rating:
Summary: Although I preferred "Being John Malkovich"...
Review: (the director/writer's last collaboration in film)
I was entranced by "Adaptation" when I saw the theatrical version. I could only imagine the layers of ingenuity that went into the film, and waited breathlessly for the DVD. The 4 star (not 5) rating is because of the DVD, not the film itself. Yes, it is in Superbit and the picture and sound are superb...but would you watch "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" for the picture and the sound quality??...No, you'd love the movie and want to see all the fascinating special features from the minds of Monty. Here, you can't wait for director Spike Jonze and writer Charlie Kaufman to tell the story of how the film came to be, to see the outtakes, to hear what Chris Cooper has to say about bringing one of the most unusual characters in American fiction/nonfiction to the screen. But you don't get any of that. And that is why you should WAIT to buy the second release of the DVD. With this version, you will hold one of the most creative films of the last decade in your hands, you'll have subtitles, the trailer...yada yada. But that is it. On to the film: Susan Orlean's slow paced but entertaining novel probably should have never made it to the big screen. In fact, you can feel the torture Nic Cage (as Charlie Kaufman on the screen, and his twin brother Donald) goes through as he tries to figure out how to get it there. The original book "The Orchid Thief" is by prize-winning journalist Orlean, who followed a
little known story of orchid thievery in South Florida, to the source. There she discovered the complex passion for the flower through the eyes of horticulturalist John LaRoche. Orlean mixes scenes of cracker Florida, orchid obsession (kind of like gold or diamonds), real life tragedy and orchid history in her book. Jones and Kaufman draw the story into a larger story of how Hollywood gets these tomes on the screen, and give a part to author Orleans (played by Meryl Streep) and screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (Nic Cage) in a story parallel to the flashbacks and current-day Floridian intrigue that Orleans goes through with LaRoche. Cameraplay around Cage's twin roles is masterful and the changeover between Charlie's and Donald's narration is amazing. Cage is deeply involved in telling of Charlie's torment and his jealousy over Donald -- he's incredibly believable. Although I feel Daniel Day Lewis and Jack Nicholson surpassed his performance this year, he was far better and more challenged than Adrian Brody, the eventual Oscar winner. Cage just keeps bouncing back. Streep captures the over-the-top nature of the Orlean role, (since most of it is fiction, anyway!)and she has good chemistry with Cooper as LaRoche. And Cooper, a favorite of mine, since "Lone Star", is amazing! He's totally captured the obsessed genius of Orleans book, combined it with an amazing twist of the cracker personality, yet he's winning at the same time as he's wily. He truly deserved the Oscar. There is a scene in the movie, involving LaRoche's family, of a car crash. It is perhaps the most jolting and terrifying scene I've ever seen on film, and it is not for the faint of heart. Somehow, that scene roots LaRoche's bizarre personality in what could have caused it. "Adaptation" is only for serious filmgoers; many will think it a waste of time -- and although the film is an easy 5 star creation, rent the DVD and wait for the next version to own it!
Rating:
Summary: Can you spell awful?
Review: If you really like off-the-wall, totally asynchronous, completely non-linear stories, this is it. If you consider yourself a mainstream movie buff, you'll probably think this is the worst movie of the year. For me, this was not entertaining, fun, or even amusing. I kept looking at the time on the DVD player, trying to guess when this...would end. The DVD doesn't even include "the making of" extra material to explain what I just saw. My only comparison is "Being John Malkovich" - if you like one, you'll like the other.
Rating:
Summary: Gloriously demented black comedy
Review: "Adaptation" is a gloriously original movie for people who love movies. Just liking movies is probably not enough to truly enjoy it. It is so odd and eccentric that many viewers will not like it at all. "Adaptation" has a plot so intricate that summing it up is no easy task. Also, the line between truth and fiction is intentionally distorted. Nicholas Cage plays dual roles as Charles and Donald Kaufman. Charles really exists and is the movie's screen writer. Donald doesn't exist but is giving a credit on the movie. The movie centers around Charles' attempts to adapt Susan Orleans' book, "The Orchid Thief" as a movie. There really is a Susan, who wrote a book by that title, but she is played by Meryl Streep. Some of what we see really happened, but most of it didn't. In essence, this is the best film about writer's block ever written. How does one adapt a book into a movie when the book is basically not adaptable? How can one remain faithful to the book? And what happens when the screen writer becomes obsessed with both the book and the author? Cage is marvelous as the Kaufman brothers. Using no special makeup, he is still able to portray each twin as distinct characters. Meryl Streep has one of her best roles ever as Orleans. Chris Cooper deservedly won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor playing John, Larouche, the orchid thief of Orleans' book. "Adaptation" is easily one of the best movies of 2002.
| 
