Rating: 
Summary: Sensational black comedy
Review: Director Spike Jonze and screen writer Charlie Kaufman masterfully collaborate to create a truly terrific madcap farcical story within a story that is Adaptation.Nicolas Cage does a superb job in his portrayal of twin screen writing brothers Charlie(!) and Donald Kaufman. Charlie, having tasted success in Being John Malkovich is an insecure, self condemning introvert. He has been commissioned with the project of converting the novel The Orchid Thief to the screen. Lacking the proper motivation, he developes a monstrous writer's block which is throwing him into a major bout of depression. Meanwhile his outgoing, yet marginally talented brother is gleaning success with a preposterous script about a killer with multiple personalities. The story within the story revolves around the plot contained within the novel The Orchid Thief. Meryl Streep, playing the author of the novel, Susan Orleans, is shown in flashback format getting information for her novel about nut case John Laroche, a brilliant horticulturist on trial for illegally harvesting rare orchids from a state preserve. Laroche is played spectacularly and in Oscar deserving form by a toothless Chris Cooper. Laroche's storied life has been plagued by tragedy. Cage, desperate for inspiration decides to meet with Streep to get some insight as his writing efforts are turning into a jumbled mess. His deadline is rapidly approaching. Cage travels to New York but spinelessly can't get the courage to speak to Streep. Cage, playing Charlie recruits his brother Donald to help him follow Streep to Florida, where she is having a rendez-vous with Cooper. That confrontation results in an utterly unpredictable ending. Spike Jones should be greatly commended for his work on this movie. I especially enjoyed his juxtaposition of the movie Being John Malkovich through the plot of Adapation.
Rating: 
Summary: Loved the first hour, hated the second.
Review: Every creature on the earth has to have its pair-creature to supplement each other. Once met, a pair of them will function naturally to ensure the world's life continuation. Not all of us meet our halves. But, even so, heart to give is still there. What do we turn to, if the need to give love is unfullfilled?Flowers? Not having found a soul-mate among human beings, do we seek for our own reflection anywhere else. Something to talk to, or something to care about...
Can woman be so desperate in her loneliness that she tries to live someone else's life? Or she still needs some kind of drug to forget or discover what she really is...
As it is incredibly light, beautiful and innocent at the beginning - it is as cheap and untrustworthy towards the end.
I would never believe, that somebody, who seeks gohsts of true love and beauty even in someone else's life, can instantly become a murderer. By the very end, the main character has defeated his fears and finds his own way out of the dark, useless and hopeless existance.
Still, the first hour of the film is what makes me shake like if I touched something fragile.Definitely, is worth to be seen.
Rating: 
Summary: Worth Seeing But Not Exactly Good
Review: A while ago, my wife brought home Moulin Rouge from the video store and I ran screaming out the door. When I came back two hours later from the bar, I asked her if she liked the movie. "No," she said, "but I was glad I saw it." I spent the better part of a week trying to figure out what on God's green earth she meant by that. How can you be glad to see a movie you didn't like? Well, now that I've seen Adaptation, I know exactly what she meant. Adaptation, like Moulin Rouge (and no, I didn't end up seeing it. Some things I simply cannot do), is a movie that is eminently worth seeing without actually being good. Let me explain. Sometimes you'll see a film and not like it, but you will want to have seen it, in order to engage yourself with it, to actually decide for yourself if it is lousy, or thought-provoking, or whatever (Note: this is not necessary with movies like "Battlefield Earth"). Adaptation has so many interesting things going for it: an intriguingly vain premise (that ends up falling apart), great performances, and deft comic touches, usually provided by the character Charlie Kaufman's inner thoughts. But the movie ends up in the exact same place it seems determined not to go. You watch it, thinking, "Isn't this exactly what isn't supposed to be happening?" And so, as a result, the last portion of the film rings false, in part because you anticipate it being some sick joke on the part of Kaufman the writer and director Spike Jonze. But they end up playing it straight, which makes no sense at all. Maybe that is the joke of it, but it's not exactly funny. There's another problem with Adaptation, and that is that Charlie Kaufman reaps what he sows. He's invented a fictional twin brother as a real character in the film, but separating the two is almost impossible. That is, you see the twin brother in the film, but you don't believe in him, because you know that he doesn't really exist. It's that toying with fact and fiction that ultimately fails Adaptation at its emotional climax. Because you never really buy any of it. Or, at least, I didn't. Adaptation is certainly original, and it is different, but that ends up meaning little. Because the story is so open structurally, it ends up not actually existing. And that's a problem any writing course can teach you to fix. Still glad I saw it, though.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best of this year
Review: Adaptation has two plots, that, obviously, get together in the end: first, New Yorker writer Susan (Meryl Streep) is trying to understand John Laroche's (Chris Cooper) life and his envolvement with orchids in the Florida 'gades and transform it into a book. Then, three years later, Susan's book is already written, and Charlie Kauffmann ( Nicholas Cage) is offered the oportunity to adapt the book to a movie script. He wants his script to be as utopic and as pure as can be, without action scenes, love affairs and all the cliches so common in Hollywood. But he suffers from a writer's block and can't get the script written; meanwhile, his twin brother, Donald, decides he also will be a script writer, and his script, full of cliches, is an instant success, driving Charlie mad. This is the plot of "Adaptation". All actors display amazing performances: Nicholas Cage is fat, ugly, (more) bald, has a high-pitched annoying voice, and entirely convinces the spectator that THERE REALLY ARE two different Nocholas Cages in the movie. Meryl Streep is a sad character as Susan, and, as always, a good performance (her Nth Oscar nomination). Chris Cooper, an eternal supporting-role actor, is phenomenal, playing an untoothed simpleton with no social skills and plenty of scientific knowledge, and should win his Oscar for the role. About the movie's technics, Spike Jonze is a very good director, and directs his movies in a different way: fast paced scenes that sometimes have no relation with anything else and yet are very meaningful in themselves; he tries to make poetry with some scenes, but it's a playful and loose poetry, and it works very well. There are a couple of car-crash scenes that made me grip harder the arms of the theater's chair, because they seemed so real. And, most impressive of all, at least to me, is a scene where both Nicholas Cage's characters appear together: I've seen plenty of scenes where the same actor appears twice or three times (like Michael Keaton's "Multiplication"), but never when THE CAMERA IS MOVING! I'm not a specialist in filmmaking, but to me this seems incredible. *SPOILERS* Charlie Kauffmann is at the same time the writer of "Adaptation" and a character in his movie. His story is about the struggle he had when trying to write the movie and trying to make it look inovative and new. His touch of genious is the fictional twin brother, Donald, who writes the most obvious cliche-script, and sells it for a fortune. Donald shows Charlie that nor film-producers neither movies audiences are completely ready to watch a movie that can be considered "pure" and "without cliches", as Charlie would say. When Charlie realizes that, he is finally able to write his script, with lots of car-chasing scenes, an impossible love story, etc. And that's why Donald dies in the end (I warned about spoilers), because he, being a fictional character, and who could be considered Charlie's "dark side", has already fulfilled his play in the story, which is showing Charlie that his utopia-script cannot be conceived and will not be accepted in the near future. *END OF SPOILERS* Great movie! Grade 9.3/10
Rating:
Summary: All alone in the Everglades...
Review: ...is how I see myself on this one, as I will be in the minority of folks who REALLY didn't like this movie! Now, the little I knew about it going into the theatre was that people thought it was good but fell apart at the end. Alright, I had that much, and nothing else. Well, this didn't gel for me right from the start, let alone the ending. For one thing, it's kind of misleading to say that this is a Nichlas Cage/Meryl Streep movie, because they're barely in it together. It's really a film of two parallel stories, happening out of synch with each other. Cage is a loser screenwriter who's struggling to make an adaptation of Streep's plotless book. He's in real time, while she's two years ago, interviewing the man in the Everglades she winds up writing a book about. A different take on the old flashback routine. Streep's is the more interesting story because of the interviewee, a toothless horticulturalist who smacks of cracker every now and again. We can see her begrudgingly becoming fascinated and infatuated with her subject. Okay! But the Cage storyline is the one getting the most play on-screen, and is it a loser. Stories ABOUT losers are tricky business; "Rocky" and "Marty" are the exception, not the rule. One bit of movie-making which I found particularly bad was that in Cage's house, he keeps talking to himself, who is lying usually on the floor talking back to him. Only towards the end of the film did I realize that he had a twin brother--I thought this was supposed to be proof of his insanity, or a manifestation of his conflicted inner self. No, it's just his twin brother. Bad, really bad. And the ending? Well, as I didn't like the movie in the first place, I wasn't too broken up by what started happening. I'm not going to spoil anything for anyone, but I will say that it brought to mind "What Lies Beneath", a movie that was going along pretty well until it became laughably awful in its denouement. That's the kind of thing that happens here, so preposterous and unmotivated, that it is shameful to Ms. Streep most of all. Period, case closed.
Rating: 
Summary: Definitely worth watching
Review: Actually, to begin with, I would rate this film 3-1/2 stars. I pretty much enjoyed the action and the acting more than the storyline, though, which at times was a bit confusing to me because of the constant shifts in time (i.e., 3 years earlier, etc.)--at times I was having trouble wondering which event preceded/followed which. Cage is a genius, though, and Streep again shows her versatility in acting out widely different roles (to see what I am getting at, see her in "Defending Your Life," "Silkwood," "Sophie's Choice," and her other movie currently out, "The Hours."). Chris Cooper is a delightful addition to the mix; he plays his part to the hilt--and then some. I found myself relating quite well to Cage's original character, a self-effacing person who doesn't give himself the credit he deserves and who continually strikes out with the women (e.g., I could substitute myself in the last scene with the young waitress--very easily!!). The ending of the movie was a bit muddled to me, but again, as I say in my title, it is surely worth the time spent watching it.
Rating:
Summary: Wildly Imaginative and Super Funny
Review: I loved the way Charlie Kaufman writes this story, it just flows with such enthusiasm. There are several stories intertwining that merge together in a strange way, ending with a bang. Adaptation occurs not just in writing a screenplay or in writing a story. Nicolas Cage plays Charlie and his ficticious twin brother, not in the story but in real life. Cage does a superb job with comedy and needs to be in much more. He has a wry witty timing that makes me laugh and smile. Meryl Streep plays the writer of the book, Charlie is adapting into a screenplay, that is all about orchids and a man named John LaRuch, played by Chris Cooper. Cooper is also really funny. I enjoyed his role and his way of adapting to it. The unpredictability is always welcome and many Hollywood films just don't reflect that. You know when you see a Kaufman screenplay it will jerk you out of that mediatative place and make you more alive in the moment. It pulls you to the screen and makes you wonder what's next. I like it because of that and the comedy. Streep was not super funny but it was funny to see her in a role where she isn't so serious or I mean playing someone serious. I hear she is a very happy easy going actor. Well, I would have given it 5, but I usually save 5's for films that really haunt me for days. This movie is very good but it doesn't really hold you to it after leaving the theater, maybe a little while. Maybe this might be different for you. A worthwhile film, and definately different!
Rating:
Summary: 'MAN'S FAVOURIET SPORT .......?"
Review: So, the movie version of James Joyce's "Ulyses" is basically 'almost all voice-over" [brilliant], Roman Polanski's "Repulsion" 'almost no dialogue, but no voice-over' [equally brillaint] SO where does this funny, quirky, sad little experience place us? Somewhere in the middle of it all - it's all very much like a Woody Allen moive - except it is not - although it seems inspired by him.... confusing? Yes! All those 'time-fragments' and it does glide along with great charm until we do hit the DREADED 'Deus Ex Machina' [the classic playwright's device to end the play when a logical ending seems to be impossible] - then it all becomes mad melodrama [great one-lines though from Ms. Streep and Mr. Cage during the final confontation - s]. MERYL STREEP 'seems' to be an extension of Clasissa ['The Hours'] another misguided New Yorker, but she is always watchable, never boring and can do anything! Nicholas Cage has the impossible task of playing identical twins - and does - flawlessly - including those odd and frequent nocturnal fantasies .... but CHRIS COOPER! Instant love for this eccentric - an original, wild, lovable manof the swamp a few beats ahead of 'Deliverance' - but such a tour-de-force - WITHOUT the force! Utterly charming even with the stringy hair and the semi-washed body and the missing front teeth - GIVE this man the Oscar!
Rating:
Summary: A Mess of a Movie
Review: The story of the writing of Adaptation is pretty well known by now. Successful screenwriter can't seem to come up with a screen play of a book in which, in his words, "nothing happens", so he writes a screen play about his inability to come up with a screenplay, and... It's all rather clever, but it comes together in a confused mess, and the frantic editing of music video director Spike Jonz, who learned his trade making two-minute promos for attention deficit teens, doesn't help matters. (This unfortunately seems to be becoming standard for the post-Sesame Street/MTV generation, so those of us looking for lyricism in film may be out of luck.) Taken individually, there are a lot of very clever and interesting scenes and themes to this movie, and some nice bits of acting. It's great to see Nicholas Cage in the sort of quirky movie that characterized his early career (think "Raising Arizona") rather than the dreadful action films he's been making lately. Certain scenes do stand out as nicely done. Meryl Streep gives her usual over-the-top performance, which Jonz indulges with excessively long shots of her method-school emoting that seem even longer than usual, given the film's otherwise frantic pacing. At a number of points I found myself wanting to yell yes, we get the point. For god's sake, get on with it already! Overall it's uneven, trite, and excessively gimmicky. Fine for a dollar rental, but I wouldn't recommend anyone see it in the theater or buy it. I often ask myself after seeing a movie, would I want to see this again? And the answer for "Adaptation" is probably not.
Rating:
Summary: Weird and Wonderful!!!
Review: The academy award nominated creators of Being John Malkovich take us on another unique and refreshing head trip. Starring Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper, Tilda Swinton, Brian Cox, and Maggie Gyllenhaal, this is a fascinating "adaptation" of the off-beat book "The Orchid Thief." This time, we journey into an even more beautifully disturbed brain: Kaufman's own. In this twisted and brilliant film, the tortured screenwriter not only shares his uneasy attempt at trying to adapt Susan Orlean's book "The Orchid Thief" into a movie, but he ultimately (and unintentionlly) writes himself into the screenplay. Nicolas Cage, in his best role in years, is completely up to the task, playing both the wound-up Charlie and his easy-breezy twin Donald. Meryl Streep goes deliciously (and surprisingly) nuts as Orlean, while Chris Cooper (American Beauty) is magnificant in his portrayal of an obsessed horticulturist (An Oscar nomination is beckoning). During all of its dizzying twists and turns, the movie remains ultimately fascinating not only because of the direction and writing, but because of the lighthearted darkness of the unusually wonderful performances. Weird and engaging in so many ways, Adaptation has all of the right stuff. And all the time, uncoiling beneath the surface of the film, is the audacious surprise of the last 20 minutes, in which--well, you gotta see for yourself. What a bewilderingly brilliant and entertaining movie this is.
|
