Rating: 
Summary: An obsessive quest for love... depravity its grail.
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Adaptation Gone Wrong
Review: I don't blame the screen writer. The project was simply too big for him. I mean, how could anyone possibly write a great adaptation for "The Orchid Thief"? It doesn't have a plot, it's full of ruminations about flowers... It's just not movie material. Okay, okay. I know that a lot of people thought this movie was great. I know, I know, 4 Academy nominations. Geez, says so on the box. Got a lot of good reviews from critics, I recognize that. This is strictly my personal view, but I hated it. The interweaving of the many threads (The screen writer's self-contempt, his jealousy for his twin brother, the screen writer's struggle to write an adaptation for a book that refuses to be adapted, the 'real' story about Susan Orleanne and LaRoche, blah blah blah) failed. The whole idea of making "The Orchid Thief" into a movie was a bad idea in the first place, but this definitely wasn't the best way to go about it. It's boring, it doesn't draw you into the story, it's choppy, it hasn't been edited enough, it will leave you depressed, and it might make you a bit angry because of disappointed expectations. I hated the main character. I didn't want to say this, since he's based on a real person (the screen writer for this movie) but I did. He whines. He complains. He hates everyone, including himself. He's arrogant. He's embittered. And the worst thing is he hasn't got a single real problem that accounts for his attitude. The movie was all the worse for his inclusion and the fact that he is the protagonist we have to spend our time with. I wanted to shout, "Get a life, you whiner! Some people actually HAVE REAL problems, unlike you!" He shouldn't have included himself in the movie. It's hard, listening to his self-loathing and hatred for over an hour. Maybe he should've taken some advice from McKee; leave out some parts that aren't necessary. How are you supposed to sympathize with a protagonist you hate? There are two way to look at it; You either think, like the movie critics, that
1)This movie was an 'intriguing, original, witty, zestful, thoughtful play upon the thin line between fact and fiction'
or you think, like me, that
2)The screen writer became desperate. He took the first idea that popped into his mind--write about his own dilemma! What a delightful turn, whee-hee! But... Uh-oh...He get's a bit stuck along the way, throws in some unbelievable twists, makes a fairy tale out of the whole thing, and gives himself a girlfriend and a good ending. The fact that it's a blend between fact and fiction hurts the movie more than it compliments it. You keep thinking, 'Jesus, that just can't be happening. No, that's not right. Oh no, oh no, WRONG TURN!' The actors did a good job, though. Great casting, great performances. I normally like intelligent art-indie style movies. I loved Magnolia. I was all prepared to like this one, or I should say, 'geared-up' to like Adaptation... After all, if I don't, I'll be in the minority within the group of 'intelligent movie watchers', wouldn't I? Still, I say it loud and clear; this was an artistic movie gone overboard, and for all its originality I declare it ADAPTATION GONE WRONG.
Rating: 
Summary: In a class of its own
Review: *minor spoilers* Adaptation, like 99% of all movies, has it's flaws and drawbacks. Since I judge a movie relative to the other junk out there I thought it was great despite these small flaws. It may have come up short in a few areas but Spike Jonze and Charlie Kaufman tried real hard to come up with something new, different and fresh here, and I admire that. At least they tried. They weren't afraid to take wild creative risks, and that's more than I can say for the mass market pulp churned out of Hollywood on a weekly basis. Nicholas Cage was wildly entertaining as Charlie and Donald Kaufman and I actually enjoyed his painful, existential meanderings about life and the creative process. Some critics mentioned how this movie presented a "scathing indictment" (an overused phrase) of the Hollywood movie industry, but I tend to disagree with that. It's almost as if Spike Jonze and Kaufman are apologizing for, even sympathizing with Hollywood and it's cliched scripts, plots and stories, not criticizing it. How? Well, Nicholas Cage plays a character trying to do the seemingly impossible, create a story simply about flowers; with no cliches, no guns, car chases, wild character arcs, and other overblown drama. Well, it drove him to near insanity, to the depths of despair, to try and create something different that people haven't seen before. In other words, it's not easy to create something original, and if Cage portrayed someone who had an easy time of it, then that would have been your scathing indictment. Also, I'm probably one of the few to admit it, but I actually found myself agreeing with the screenwriter "guru" Robert McKee while he was giving his speech on stage about how "nothing happens in the world? are you out of your f*****g mind?" His character did not come off like a cliched moron, he made good points. Another thing I'd like to admit is that I liked the last third of the movie, but not simply because it was clever that Donald Kaufman took over the script. Because it was exciting, and yet it contained all the cliches Charlie and the rest of us annoyed moviegoers are always complaining about. What does that mean, that I'm one of the stupid gullible masses who likes my entertainment spoonfed to me? Probably not. It's not the cliches that suck, it's how they're presented. How good the actors are, and how to present your cliche in an original way. Haha. Because lets face it, all of life is a damn cliche. Adaptation was fantastic, and now officially one of my all time favorite movies. It's a shame this didn't do better at the box office. How criminal.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Jungian metaphor!
Review:
Warning: spoilers! Don't read if you don't want to know key plot points. Wonderful and funny Jungian story. Background: Jung would argue that we repress those qualities we don't like in ourself onto our "Shadow" self, and that our conscious is in constant conflict with our shadow in order to preserve the illusion of the "mask" or false self that we believe we are and that we present to the world. Thus, the qualities that we've repressed onto the Shadow, we associate with the enemy and we project them onto the world. So those qualities that we loath most in others are precisely those qualities that we secretly loath in ourselves - and in order to attain psychological wholeness we must recognize, embrace, and re-integrate the Shadow (unconscious). The screenwriter here, Charlie, abhors shallowness and superficiality in his craft and strives to write movies of substance without having to resort to formulas & gimmicks. He resents having to pander to the shallowness of the audience and feels that he has risen above this, but really he has just repressed it onto his shadow (represented by his twin, Donald) who is his exact opposite: shallow and unbothered by artistic considerations. Charlie, is racked by insecurity and self-loathing (the result of his inner battle), while Donald is confident and oblivious to self-judgment. So, in order to become whole, Charlie first has to realize his state of conflict (represented by his writer's block), recognize the value in his shadow self (he seeks Donald's opinion and help), and work to reintegrate the unconscious (they work together on the screenplay) so that he can achieve psychological wholeness - which is represented in the movie by the brother dying (the unconscious ceases to exist because it has been reintegrated). At the end of the movie Charlie having become whole is no longer judgmental or insecure but rather is hopeful and healthy. Note: Adaptation as a title is an interesting play on words, also, because the movie deals with the evolutionary process of Adaptation in orchids, the process of writing a screen adaptation of a novel, and most importatly the process of several characters (Charlie especially) negotiating (some successfully, others not) the process of personal adaptation when faced with life's challenges. Another note: the movie is its own "Shadow". It preaches against cheesey literary techniques while employing them liberally at the same time (such as voice overs, the use of twins to display two sides of one's personality, and ultimately resorting to gratuitous sex, violence and action to compensate for lack of substance). Hilarious!
Rating:
Summary: A cynical masterpiece
Review: A worthy sucessor to the inspired nuttiness of Being John Malkovich, this film is to Hollywood screenwriting conventions what Dr. Strangelove was to the Cold War. The film features flawless performances by Nick Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper and Tilda Swinton and an especially inspired turn by Brian Cox as formula screenwriting guru Robert McKee ("...and God help you if you use voice-over in your work, my friends! God help you!"). Spike Jonze's direction is actually more sure-handed than it was in Malkovich and the cinematography, lighting, editing and sound are all superb. But in the end, what makes this movie special is its utterly cynical, sly and underhanded attack on scriptwriting conventions. The self-loathing central protagonist, screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (Nick Cage), is trying to adapt Susan Orlean's delightfully written but somewhat meandering book, the Orchid Thief (itself, nothing more that an extended New Yorker article). The film then shifts back and forth between the storyline of the Orchard Thief (featuring Streep and Cooper) and Kaufman's increasingly frustrated attempts to write said storyline. Kaufman is initially determined to be faithful to the reality of the book ("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."), but as his writer's block mounts he ends up in a solipsistic dead end . . . actually writing himself into the film. Faced with deadlines, threats of having made a "bad career move" and the overnight success of his annoyingly chipper and ingenuous twin-brother (again, Nick Cage) as a formula scriptwriter of slasher films, Kaufman hits rock bottom and in a moment of sheer panic actually attends a Robert McKee scriptwriting seminar. McKee's advice ("A good third act can save any film.") inspires an epiphany in Kaufman . . . and then the real fun begins as the film morphs itself into a riotous send-up of a conventional Hollywood flick complete with sex, guns, car chases, drug use, characters learning profound life lessons and reconciling with family members prior to tragedy striking. Hell, there's even a Casablanca ending! The beautifully duplicitous thing about the last reel, however, is that this "conventional movie fantasy" is so well made it's . . . well . . . almost believeable (at least until the crocodile shows up). Heck, my wife was bawling through the twin's reconciliation scene in the Everglades. Indeed, judging from many of the reviews posted here, it's evident that more than a few viewers don't realize that Mr. Kaufman has taken them for a delightful self-parodying ride in the film's final reel. . . It's a rare film that can so thoroughly bite the hand that feeds it, without that hand objecting too much.
Rating:
Summary: "You are what you love, not what loves you."
Review: Donald Kaufman: I'm putting in a chase sequence. So the killer flees on horseback with the girl, the cop's after them on a motorcycle and it's like a battle between motors and horses, like technology vs. horse. Does life imitate art? Or is it the other way around? Or is it that there's just no way to keep fact and fiction distinct? Such intriguing questions are at the core of Spike Jonze's hilarious and delightfully clever "Adaptation." Who knew that a combination of orchid thieves, screenwriters, and the maddening creative process could produce such an entertaining viewing experience? Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) writes a book entitled "The Orchid Thief." The book chronicles a Florida orchid hunter named John Laroche (Chris Cooper) who initially appears to be a harmless head case obsessed with finding rare orchids, but soon turns out to be much more. Screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage) finds out the hidden truths behind Orlean and Laroche after being hired to adapt Orlean's book into screenplay form. Unable to find the right approach to his task, Kaufman and his twin brother Donald (also played by Cage) delve deeper and deeper into the story behind the story in Orlean's book and what they find is one surprise after another that forces Charlie to change his outlook on life and his own personal perceptions of reality. "Adaptation" is one of those wonderful mind trip films that functions as a satire on one level and an engaging thesis on the nature of reality on the other. Its assertion that there are no clear boundaries that separate "truth" and "non-truth" in the post-modern world is an apt statement in an era where reality entertainment has become the newest flavor of the month. Strong performances are a must to pull off such complicated material and "Adaptation" is filled to the brim with them. Cooper, Tilda Swinton, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Brian Cox are wonderful. However, it is Cage and Streep that shine. Cage gives perhaps his best performance ever as the twin brothers and Streep has not been this magnificent and enchanting in years. "Adaptation" is one of those films that makes you grateful that people like Spike Jonze are working today. It is a film that refuses to play by the rules and is all the better for it. It is not a perfect film as there are uneven spots and some of its themes become muddled at points, but it is still one of the jewels of the 2002 film year.
Rating:
Summary: A Different Kind of Movie
Review: OK, I haven't seen it yet but I'm going to see it very soon. In fact I bought it for my boyfriend who thinks it's one of the greatest movies ever made. I am tentatively giving it a 3 stars, not because I think it is awful, but because I don't hold high expectations for it. If I wasn't dying to see it in the theatres, then I figure that it wasn't worth my time or money. But I am hoping that my preconceptions about this movie are wrong, so here goes nothing!
Rating: 
Summary: Horrible, Horrible Movie
Review: Chris Cooper and Meryl Streep are great. Nicholas Cage is not very good. The movie as a whole was extremely boring, disjointed, and horribly written. I was really excited to see this movie. It had gotten rave reviews and friends recommended it. What a big disappointment. Don't waste your time. Skip over this one and see something else.
Rating:
Summary: Something different this way comes...
Review: I admire the originality, drama, and interest created by Kaufman combining two screenplay writing "styles". I enjoyed the movie tremendously. It starts out slow and you don't think it's going anywhere, then bam - the itensity and drama pick up and toss you around like a carnival ride.
Great acting by Cage, Cooper and Streep.
My only complaint and the only thing keeping the movie from being perfect, is that there were no dogs in the film. I love dogs. Somebody should always have a dog.
Rating:
Summary: An annoying, nerve-destroying film
Review: Being a screenwriter myself, a story about another writer should be interesting, but this is pure self-indulgence by the writer, and the producers should be slapped for spending money on his indulgence. A more loathsome creature onscreen I have never seen than the scriptwriter's persona played by Cage. Cage is good, as is Street, and Cooper gives an excellent performance, but the whole film had me feeling like I was covered by ants biting me all over until my nerves were raw. Maybe it is just me, but I am tired of Oliver Stone-type movies where quick cuts abound, and you have to move fast to avoid being hit by some off-the-wall filming. I miss linear storytelling.
| 
