Rating: 
Summary: The Process of Screen Writing in Process
Review: Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage) has landed a new opportunity to shine by writing a screen adaptation of the book The Orchid Thief by Susan Orleans (Meryl Streep). The screenplay that he is working on is about orchids, but he has difficulty with how the book should be adapted to the screen. In addition, Charlie's insecurities affect his social life, which snowballs and enhances his negative self-perception. This in turn reflects on his inept ability to get started with the adaptation of The Orchid Thief. During Charlie's struggles, he allows his brother Donald (Nicolas Cage) to stay at his place, since Donald is facing difficulties in his life as well in regards to what he wants from life, plus, he is broke. When Donald recognizes his desire in life, he realizes that he too wants to become a screenwriter and begins taking a screenwriting class, which Charlie mocks. However, Donald remains positive and seeks Charlie's advice, which Charlie even sees as a waste of his own time. Adaptation has a superb cast that portrays several characters with thorough character development that is enhanced through the films' brilliant screenplay. In addition, the direction is remarkable in many aspects and it leaves the audience with a story that causes bewildering enlightening that enhances the true feeling of the characters as well as the story. Lastly, the title of the film makes sure that the audience knows what the film is about, however, it is the process of getting there that makes this cinematic experience brilliant.
Rating: 
Summary: A film about orchids, passion, inspiration and...adaptation
Review: Adaptation is a film that describes the creative process of a writer in a very original way. Its basic character is Charlie Kaufman, the true screenwriter of the movie. Nicolas Cage, whose Oscar nomination for the part is certainly justified, depicts him as fat, balding and without any confidence. Everything begins with a hilarious introductory scene, where Charlie accepts to adapt into a motion picture script a book that talks about orchids (the real book by Susan Orlean titled "Orchid Thief").Adaptation is a film written by Charlie Kaufman. Those familiar with "Being John Malkovich", one of the best movies of year 1999, will probably know what to expect. Still, even they will be pleasantly surprised. Starting with Charlie's attempts to adapt a book that may be wonderful, nonetheless lacks the necessary ingredients (story, action) to be made into a movie, director Spike Jonze introduces us 2 more central figures: Through continuous flashbacks, we meet the writer of "Orchid Thief", Susan Orlean, (Meryl Streep flashes in a part which in essence is tragic but has many comic moments) while she collects information for her book. Through extra flashbacks, we get to know Laroche (played by Chris Cooper, a fair Oscar winner), who is the actual inspiration for Orlean. If that was not enough, Donald, the twin brother of Charlie, who may not be as childishly naive as we first think, also appears. Adaptation is a film that combines fiction and fantasy in an almost surreal way. We meet real persons played by themselves, real persons played by actors and persons who are not real! Adaptation is a film that talks about passion in life. Laroche has a passion for orchids. Orlean is still searching to find passion in her life. Adaptation is a film that talks about....adaptation! Not only the adaptation of a book into a film script, but also the adaptation in life, people's necessity for change depending on the circumstances. If things stayed there, Adaptation would have been one of the best films of the year. Unfortunately, and in contrast with the depiction of its screenwriter, the film seems to be too confident in itself, something that at the end turns against it: The last 20 minutes of the movie, based on a smart idea, consist of an indirect and deliberately over the top commentary aimed towards the Hollywood film industry. Still, in my personal opinion, the result was not the desired one. It spoiled the positive impression that Adaptation had created up to that point, leaving me with a bitter taste in the mouth.
Rating:
Summary: "So happy together"
Review: Nat a single moment in "Adaptation" fails to be fascinating and entertaining. All four stars -- Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper, and, er, Nicolas Cage -- give funny, moving and complex performances. (With Chris Cooper's Oscar win for "Adaptation" itself, this is now a film whose entire lead cast consists of Oscar winners!) The script is undoubtedly one of the most clever and insightful screenplays ever written. "Adaptation"'s ending is disliked by many people who feel it departs from the principles of the rest of the movie. For one thing, that's the point -- the script is, after all, credited to "Charlie **and Donald** Kaufman". For another thing, McKee (as brilliantly played by Brian Cox) is right: a movie should wow us in the end. If "Adaptation" lacked its ending, it would still be funny, fascinating and moving, but it would lack something extra, something special, that the ending gives it. Given the film's thematic content, I think it would be possible to dislike the ending and like the film as a whole even more for that reason. For myself, however, the ending was moving and memorable even on the surface, and the layers of hidden significance only made it more powerful. "Adaptation" was my favorite film of 2002.
Rating:
Summary: Split Personalities
Review: Leaving the Cinema after Adaptation, the opinions were very split. On one side was the English faction who thought the film pretentious, silly and quite frankly far too enthropic towards the end and at the other pole there were the two of us. A shouting match ensued, leaving us, if not triumphant, at least doubly as convinced of the value of this film.
This film, which admirably shows an insecure and socially inept screenwriter struggling to adapt a book to the screen, is not just conventional narrative. It is at times pretentious, but on the whole, the narrative within the narrative, the playing with genre, time, tone and voice is quite brilliant, funny and cynical. It is Italo Calvino set into film- a cinematic adaptation of if on a winters night a traveler- however with a wink and a nod at holywood, and its conventions.
Rating: 
Summary: Cage at his most annoying; most overrated film of the year
Review: This movie could have been written by a film school student with no talent. The plot is trivially simple: a screenwriter can't think of a decent screenplay, so he writes a screenplay about himself trying to write a screenplay. Oh, and did I mention you get to see several scenes of Nicholas Cage masturbating? And a scene of Meryl Streep snorting hallucinogenic drugs? Why didn't anyone think of this sooner? Maybe because it's immature, gimmicky, and totally pointless. Cage and Streep have hit their respective low points.
Rating:
Summary: the last third is donalds movie
Review: I loved adaptation but my twin brother did not...Well he liked the last third. His favorite film is Armegeddon. I won't get annoyed at people who don't get this movie. It is the most complex movie of the year, one so complex that if you don't get it, it works like a normal movie, and not a very good one in the end...
first of all, the movie is called adaptation, but it could also be called compromise. I feel like Charlie Kaufman, the actual writer of adaptation hasn't compromised in the last third of adaptation. To me, it is the ultimate point. Those who feel like the last third is trite, and ridiculous and formulaic have lived Charlie Kaufman's reality. Through the study of orchids. kaufman learns about adaptation, his own, Susan Orleans, the orchids, and ultimately art(if popular film making is art. This is a very funny movie about adaptation, art,etc.
I think the biggest problem is that people don't get it. That's Ok. I have a friend who just didn't get it, all the way to the point of saying that Nicolas Cage looked terrible. Some women snarled at me for laughing at the beginning, and at the end, when Donald Kaufman's memorial credit came up. It is such a unique movie, such a blur of real and not, that you can take it for fiction....take it for fact....or take it for symbolism. Someone says the movie goes south in the last third....yes, because Charlie asks for compromise, he seeks the help of his brother, and once he does that, all the beautiful linkages of orchids to people to life to loneliness are laid waste to Donalds view....the story adapts to it's surroundings... I thought this was a brilliant movie, a gem in a world of knowing where entertainment is going to take you. And if you are like my brother, you will love the last third.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant! Pay attention.
Review: I loved this movie. I won't ramble on incessantly with superlatives. I've heard many gripes about the last third of the movie and how the whole thing falls apart. It doesn't fall apart. Up to that point, Charlie--the "real" writer--has been telling the story. Once Donald comes to New York to help Charlie, Donald takes over telling the story in his "Hollywood" way. That's why it becomes an almost formulaic chase movie from that point to the end. Charlie wouldn't have used the deus ex machina (in the form of a crocodile)--McKee admonishes him in the bar not to--but Donald doesn't have the same pretensions. It's completely Donald's story from the moment he questions Susan Orleans in her office until the epilogue when Charlie retakes control and ends the story. That is a stroke of storytelling genius, as far as I'm concerned. This movie deserves (needs?) to be seen more than once. It's one of the best, most unusual films to hit the screen since this team did "Malkovich".
Rating: 
Summary: Great actors, scattered film
Review: I like Meryl Streep and Nicholas Cage is pretty good as his usual unusual character playing two characters, however in the critical third act of the movie this film goes whacko south. Cage obsesses over writing a screenplay, while his twin brother locks it down in a hilarious short amount of time and suddenly becomes the one trying to save his brother's successful career as a writer. So they begin stalking this writer,played by Streep who begins having an affair with the man she's written a book about.
Writers falling in love with the writer's of their work subject was interesting, where this would resolve was kind of interesting. Until one brother is taken hostage by Streep when she catches him watching her have an affair, she's married. Taling both brother's out to the Florida swamp Streep and her lover intend to kill them and this is where the movie lost all credibility with me. If Streep's marriage had been initially outlined as something she was tremendously involved in then her fearign exposure and loss could've made sense. However her ego isn't as clearly portrayed as Cage's over his work. Him snapping and killing and kidnapping is credible but her snapping seems contrived or something to kill off his odd twin brother and show that they really do care for each other.
I think the problem with these movies now is that they are strong in casting and in the first two acts but then writers and producers and directors panic and try to pump up the ending. And messes like Adaptation are made.
Good actors, good two thirds of the film but the final third is so out there that it ruins the rest of the film by the time the credits role. It comes off as contrived. A genius writing a great movie is a good thing, a genius hurling the ending out of nowhere at an unsuspecting audience, is unfair.
Rating:
Summary: Nic Cage Returns to Serious Acting; Kaufman & Jonze Score
Review: Nicholas Cage was a favorite actor of mine early in his career when he took outside-the-movie-mainstream roles. After winning the Oscar for "Leaving Las Vegas," he started making action adventure films and his heavyweight acting abilities were hidden. Those skills triumphantly return in "Adaptation," a brilliantly original film penned by Charlie Kaufman and directed by Spike Jonze, both of "Being John Malkovich" fame for their writing and directing. I needed to see "Being John Malcovich" several times in order to appreciate it to the fullest extent and I suspect the same is true for this film. There is so much going on in both films that one viewing is not enough to process it all. I wish I could say this about more films because I delight in the complexity of such a film and welcome discovering something new with each viewing. The plot revolves around screenwriter Kaufman's escalating difficulties with writing a screenplay adaptation of a book, "The Orchid Thief." This book is more of a meditation than a plot around a structural core which is what most books are. He can't write it, so in the ultimate irony, makes his own meditation about creativity, the artistic process and living inside and outside one's artistic creations. He pulls himself, a twin brother who does not exist in the real world (I suspect he is Kaufman's id), the novelist and the protagonist of the book into his screenplay as characters and brings them all together, fittingly enough, in the place all creation begins, the primordial swamp. Of course, his swamp is in Florida but close enough! Some viewers do not like this film. Other viewers positively hate it. This movie requires a lot of thinking on the part of the viewer and is also an extended metaphorical riff. If you don't like the idea of an entire film being a metaphorical riff about the creative process and the creative stew, then you will not like this film. If you do like that concept, you will love it.
Rating:
Summary: Boxes Inside of Boxes
Review: "Adaptation" is hard to think about without comparing it to "Being John Malkovitch". (My mom keeps making the mistake of comparing movies that happen to be in the theater at the same time without considering the genre, director, etc. It drives me crazy). Adaptation had sort of this Russian doll feel of boxes inside of boxes -- very self-conscious. Yet, it was nearly impossible to keep everything in its proper compartment. The insertion of the scene from Being John Malkovitch was very fitting since they choose the scene in which John is running through the corridors of his own psyche. I felt like we/Nicholas Cage were experiencing that throughout the movie. This is especially so when things begin to unravel at the end; He desperately wants to write simple screenplay without gimmicks, car chases, murderous plots, drug runners, extramarital affairs, life changing lessons, melodrama, etc. but it is unavoidable. Ultimately, it all spills out as though it is a separate life force (perhaps the twin) that cannot be contained.
|
