Rating: 
Summary: Where's the Writer?
Review: Surely one of the most self-absorbed and self-indulgent films with memory. Fabulous acting by Chris Cooper, Meryl Streep and Nick Cage can't save this dog. Somebody should have told Charlie Kaufman what Tom Lehrer once said -- that people with nothing to say should just shut up!
Rating: 
Summary: great movie
Review: this is a really great movie and an unusual one at that. nicolas cage plays a double roll and meryl streep is great too. top stuff.
Rating: 
Summary: Visionary, Intruiging, Yet Misunderstood
Review: As I left the movie theater after seeing this film, I heard an elderly woman behind me ask one of her friends, "What was that movie about?""Adaptation" is very... bizarre. It is the adaptation of "The Orchid Thief," a novel by Susan Orlean, but it is actually a film about the adaptation of the novel. It chronicles the fictitious events of Charlie Kaufman trying to adapt the novel into the movie, thus creating this movie. In essence: "Adaptation" is about the making of "Adaptation." In a way, it can be viewed as an infinite, as movie within movie begets another movie within that, and so on. It's really incredible to think about, and at the same time, it does cover some of the material of the book, talking about the history of orchid thievery very briefly, along with the relations between Susan Orleane and LaRoche continuing as being read from the book by Charlie. Charlie truly struggles with the source material, wanting to stay true to it, and yet finding no substance with which to create a plot, using a book review as a source for this decision. The merging of the script and reality is interesting, and it makes it more interesting that Charlie wavers in and out of reality in the movie with his ideas of what to put in the script, which are then shown in the script, which are then in the movie, to be put in the script, etc. Also plaguing Charlie is his brother David, determined to be a successful screenwriter like his brother, yet bumbling through impossibilities that would only work in a non-adapted book, only to stumble upon success while Charlie continues to struggle (in fact, the premise for David's screenplay seems to be loosely used in the film "Identity.") In reality, David helped Charlie with this script, but the movie alters things (I suppose each wrote their own personalities.) One problem with the two (both played by Nicholas Cage) is that while David's constant hounding of Charlie makes the viewer feel uncomfortable, David is also one of the only characters the viewer can care about (though what happens to LaRoche before the beginning is pretty tragic.) David is also the main source of comic relief, and some of his lines and analyses are really funny. This makes Charlie unlikable, as in every moment he is criticizing David, it makes his own loathing for himself (professed at the start) to be all the more necesary. Some have viewed the movie's ending as problematic, stating it tacks onto the book, and it also is too "Hollywood" for an otherwise forwardly off-key film. In a sense, both of these accusations are true, and done for a reason. The point of Charlie's dilemna is that he can eventually come to his own conclusion, and because Susan Orleane is a character in the workings for the script, it's necessary to conclude things after the end of the book. As for the Hollywoodness of it, that's Charlie's own stab at himself, as well as a wit of irony towards he as a character. In the beginning, he states that he wants to make a movie about flowers, not about all the various things typically added to a Hollywood movie (drugs, gun, car chases, etc.) It works, as the movie turns into exactly what he didn't want it to be, and I find it strange that anyone would complain about the intriuging idea. "Adaptation" is a strange film, and granted, many people won't understand it or will find it boring. They miss out on something that is an amazing experience, and if you haven't seen it, you should, if only for the oppurtunity to view the infinity and majesty within "Adaptation." -Escushion
Rating:
Summary: Bad Adaptation
Review: It is curious that so few people find the bad reviews helpful. They are much more insightful than many of the good ones. So, here goes another bad one, insightful or not. I was extremely disappointed with this movie. I was looking forward to the odd conceit of a film within a film. Having labored through reading The Orchid Thief, I knew it would be a difficult book to bring to the screen. Good idea, I thought, to make a movie about writing the screenplay. It would give the book some meat. Where did it go wrong? From the opening scenes to the bitter end. The major trouble with the movie is that we don't care about any of the characters. Charlie and his brother are loathsome (so much so that Charlie loathes himself, his one smart move). By the end of the movie, we still barely care about any of them, we just want them to go away. Laroche is well cast and well acted, but he spirals into a despicable character, something he never did in the book. The major points of the book are that Orleans never saw the rare treasure, the ghost orchid---and, she DID NOT physically fall for Laroche. A non story? Or, a story so subtle that the lessons are too profound for people to understand. OK, that's the hard to adapt part. Enter Charlie. IF we had liked Charlie, and the movie within the movie idea had held steady, it might have gone somewhere. The story could have continued to be about Charlie and his screenplay. Instead, the screenplay becomes the book, and in a huge muddle, the Hollywood ending melds the screenplay and the book, resulting in an unbelievable, pointless, gratuitous ending. Streep even sinks into pathetic acting with trite lines. What could have saved this film would be to keep the play and the book separate, i.e.: stick to the movie within the movie idea. One tract would be the writing of the screenplay, the other the reality of the book floating within it. The contrast of the two would have created a tension that would have made the movie interesting. Instead, the two merge into one, and the fantastical ending makes for an unbelievable and trite story which leaves the viewer, and I dare say the author, totally enraged. The screenplay could easily have indited Hollywood tripe (obviously its main goal) by having the screen writer create a bad ending for the movie, rather than rewriting the ending of the book. The contrast between what really happened in the book(or didn't happen as the case may be) and how the screenplay ends, could have sent a far clearer message. This obviously was too taxing a concept for the severely limited screenwriter to do, so he simply wallows in the very mediocrity that he despises. I stayed mad for a week after I saw the film. What a missed opportunity, and what a mess they made of the whole thing!
Rating:
Summary: this is a very bad movie, except for Meryl Streep
Review: If you are a pathetic loser, and you like to watch movies writen by pathetic losers that are about themselves being a pathetic loser, then you should definitely watch this movie. An author writes a book that is to be written into a screenplay, and the screenwriter is such a self-indulgent twit that he writes the movie about himself (the movie is all about what a loser he is). Meryl Streep made the movie bearable (she's gorgeous here). Don't eat just before watching this movie, because you'll see shots of a shirtless Nicholas Cage.
Rating:
Summary: Just Plain Trite
Review: Well, like, y'know, we gotta make this movie, so what'll it be about? Oh, I know! It'll be about *me* writing this movie and it'll be *so* cool--cause I'll go in and out of the movie so the audience, like, never knows what's going on! And I'll be the writer, who's a genius, of course, but make him look like an idiot! With a twin! How cool is that? And there's this guy who just knows all this cool stuff about nature and all that smart stuff and ... he's an idiot too! But he's a genius! (This is so cool!) And he just like gets to know all about fish and stuff and learns everything! He can even say the cool technical names and all, so he's a genius, but then he just drops things, y'know, cause like now he knows all about it, been there, done that. And like, there's this cool bored career woman who like doesn't have any passion left and so.... [This has all been done before and tossing it into a garbage disposal to see what comes out when doesn't save it from being tripe.]
Rating:
Summary: Truly Wonderful
Review: Adaptation stars Nicholas Cage, Meryl Streep, and Chris Cooper and if you havent seen it you definatly should. Adaptation is about a bald fat screenwriter, Charlie kaufman (Who actually wrote Adaptation) writing the Movie Adaptation. If you still dont understand this can best be described by that painting of a painter painting a picture but the picture the painter is painting is of himself painting a picture and so on. Charlie also has a brother Donald, Thier twins (Charlie exists in real life but Donald in real life is another alias Charlie Kaufman writes under, The real charlie kaufman dosent have a brother Donald). Donald is also trying to be a sucessful screenwriter, not the old conventional way of just writing fom you heart but buy going to classes to learn hollywood movie formulas, which Charlie is totally against. Donald is writing a Hollywood Horror/Psycological Thriller called, "THE 3" ("The 3" is credited on the DVD under Donald Kaufman but like i said Donald is an alternate identity Charlie Kaufman goes under and i also found out that "The 3" Isnt even a real movie thats coming out its an [imitation] movie so if you buy the DVD dont belive the Filmographies)Whlie Charlie is Adapting a book called "The Orchid thief" Charlie has no idea how to make it a movie, hes conflicted with [physical] urges, he sometimes get sidetracked and .... He Tries to date women but just cant stop thinking about his work. When all else fails he writes himself into his own screenplay which doesnt help the fact that at present his brother seems to be doing better that he is in every way. He becomes fasinated with susan orlean the author of the Orchid thief and feel she is the key to unlocking the mystery surrounded by the book and how to approach the material but it slowly becomes evident that Susan Orlean has problems of her own and that she didnt really know or understand what she was writing when she was writing it. Its filled with strong irony strong performances and Spike Jonze does a superb job of directing ( You might remember his work from 1999s Being John Malkovich) Thers alot of little thing im forgetting but you gus are smart enough to get it ... this movie ROCKED!!
Rating: 
Summary: Strange flick.
Review: This is a strange flick, to be sure, but one that certainly has cult potential. Streep is, well, Streep-like (i.e., perfect) and Cage is better than in any other film in which I've seen him, but the plot is a bit too bizarre for my taste and the violence is on the gratuitous side.
Rating:
Summary: WHY CAN'T THEY MAKE IT LIKE THAT ANYMORE??
Review: I have to say, Nicolas Cage is a great actor, if you look at his movie history, you'd say the same. But after I bought thi DVD, I became nuts about the movie. This is the most original movie I have ever seen in my life. Seems like the story has no story (get it?, It's a one-time experience. I watch it once every week. Some people can't adapt!
Rating:
Summary: Loved it - I'm still smiling half an hour later
Review: This is the most original and quirky comedy that I've ever seen. It's an anti-formula film. It shocks you because you can't figure out where it's going next and it's such a joy to have no real idea where a film is going! I don't want to ruin it for anyone, so I'm not even going to talk about the plot. Let me just say that the entire cast is amazing, especially Nicolas Cage. Buy this!!
|
