Rating: 
Summary: Nothing great...
Review: While I wasn't abhorred by this movie, I also didn't find it worthy of my purchase. I don't know if it didn't capture my interests, or if it just wasn't a good movie. Sometimes the writing seems a little bit forced, and the movie moves so slow. One reviewer noted that it was a wanna-be intellectual movie, I kindof agree with that. It did seem to steal a few traits common in "intellectual" movies, and present them in a boring and even annoying light.
Rating: 
Summary: 4 1/2 stars, actually, but I can't choose that, can I?
Review: The two most wildly innovative screenplays I have seen filmed are "Being John Malkovich" and "Adaptation" - both written by Charlie Kaufman. Note that I am not saying "the two most satisfyingly entertaining" - much of my enjoyment of both of these films are due to the sheer audacity of the labyrinth-on-drugs plotlines. I won't attempt to give anything away or bother covering what this story *is* as there are hundreds of other reviews you can read for that. What I DO want to say is that I feel Mr. Kaufman's screenplay is a joke - at his expense - and that he's trying to let us in on it. When his character is finding it difficult to impossible to adapt Susan Orlean's "The Orchid Thief" he writes himself into the story, THEN writes in his fictional twin brother who attends a "screenplay-by-numbers" class taught by Brian Cox and writes a big bucks by-the-numbers screenplay. An abrupt change occurs in the final act of the movie when (here's my interpretation) Charlie caves in and decides to resolve the movie in a "hollywood-big-action-suspense-thriller-by-the-numbers" way. I won't give away the details, but the real hero of "The Orchid Thief", the author of that book, the screenwriter and his fictional twin brother all collide in a weird swampy film noire ending that isn't funny "ha-ha", but funny in an "isn't it ridiculous when Hollywood makes films that have to conform to formulas?" kind of way. You're welcome to your own interpretation, but I liked it. Don't expect to get deep into these characters, because by the end you hardly know "who's who" - but as I said up at the top: this is one of the two most original film's I know of.
Rating:
Summary: Another cynical Hollywood in joke
Review: ...just like Kaufman's stunningly awful "Being John Malkovich", but this time, it's almost entertaining, probably moreso if you dont know what to expect here. Charlie Kaufman cant figure out how to bring a plotless novel to screen, and finds the only way to get a movie out of it is to make the movie about how he couldnt figure out how to bring the plotless novel to the screen. With a little help from his more gregarious screenwriter brother(who prefers the formulaic to Kaufman's more sensitive, off-kilter stuff), he barely manages to adapt himself and the movie. And you and I pay money so he can tell us what a lousy screenwriter and sorry human being he is. Regardless of the fact that the joke is on the viewer, I've seen worse.
Rating: 
Summary: Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen
Review: I have attempted to watch this movie twice. After getting part way through it both times, longer through the second time just to force ourselves to give it more of a chance, we shut it off due to the fact that we were so incredibly bored. I have absolutely no understanding of what any of you, who liked it, see in this movie. Perhaps it gets better, but when over half of the movie is dead, I don't see how it could.
Rating:
Summary: Adaptation (2002)
Review: Director: Spike Jonze
Cast: Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper.
Running Time: 114 minutes.
Rated R for violence, language, and mild sexual situations. One of the most stunningly original films of the past decade, "Adaptation" is a triumph of uniqueness, hope, brotherhood, and perseverance. Director Spike Jonze tells the story of Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage), a chubby, poor self-esteem stricken screenplay writer assigned to adapt the Susan Orlean novel about flowers into a film. As Charlie learns more about Orlean (Streep) and her obsession with the quirky Orchid lover John Larouche (played by Oscar-winning Chris Cooper, who was long overdue for the recognition, for he should have won for "American Beauty), he realizes even further that he does not possess the qualities to write a formidable script based on the book. While he is attempting to write a script and loosing his mind in the process, Charlie is encouraged by his upbeat, yet overly annoying screen-writing brother Donald (also played by Cage; they are twin brothers) to write the story in a more traditional, Hollywood style. Charlie refuses this notion and flies to New York to meet Orlean in search of the perfect idea for his script. Through this journey, Charlie learns about what it means to love, what his purpose in life should be, and how a simple thing such as an orchid can change lives. What makes "Adaptation" so intriguing is that it is a film about a screen-writer who is writing a script about the actual events that are transpiring on film. Jonze takes us on a crazy ride of emotions, through the troubled mind of Charlie, the desiring soul of Susan Orlean, and the zany antics of the grisly-toothed Larouche that envelopes around a theme that will touch all those who grasp it. Cage is wonderful as the joint brothers and Streep is stellar as usual in her supporting role. Although not for all due to the different beating of its drum, "Adaptation" is an essential piece of the modern film puzzle and truly a work of film stylistic art at its finest.
Rating:
Summary: what a boring, pseudo-intellectual piece of pulp
Review: isnt it strange that everyone that likes this film thinks that those that dont simply have not understood it? surely if a large number of people all consider something misunderstood by others, there is a degree of consensus that the film has not been understood. and i do not doubt that all those people are mightily intelligent, but it is clearly true in the field of philosophy that genius is apparent to those who do not possess genius because some element of said genius resides in the ability to convey the brilliant in a simplistic package. if that is correct, which i suppose it might not be, then this is not genius, since it is so methodically misunderstood. anyway, understanding, appreciating and enjoying are clearly very different things and sometimes weird is just plain weird. sometimes weird is intricate and clever. sometimes weird is plain, stupid and pointless. i would also surmise that every film of this type generates a series of people that consider it to be each of these descriptions. unfortunately for me, i found this utterly and incontravertibly boring. if i had to make a stab at it i would guess that charlie kaufman thought it would be funny in an andy kaufman kind of way to satirise himself making a movie about satirising himself. this movie plays like an in-joke. if you can laugh with the writer then by all means laugh. i didnt even manage a chuckle. what i found puzzling was that chris cooper and meryl streep put in excellent performances that deserved so much and yet not even these could elevate such a wantonly introspective script. i don't much like nic cage, i dont think he is a great serious actor, he gets far too hammy and should stick to black comedies and action. maybe this is black comedy and i have missed the point? sadly i just dont care. the cinematography in the swamp scenes is superb. i salute kaufman because he has either created a masterpiece or a terrible film and even if people criticise it as the latter he can adopt a knowing grin and point to all the smart critics who have delved so much deeper and know the true meaning and know that this is, undeniably, a masterpiece. a successful exercise in back-patting mr kaufman. however, when were you planning on engaging your audience instead of either ignoring them or laughing at them? artistically your approach might be a stroke of genius, but as entertainment i found nothing commendable or absorbing. so this is a 1* effort, but you might find it deserves 5* and maybe that is the genius of it, or maybe it is the fatal flaw. if i hate it, am i missing something? only that you need not ask yourself that question, in my opinion.... i cared far more about the orchids than i ever could about this film.
Rating:
Summary: Overly-hyped, cliched and tired
Review: The film is comic at points but its juxtaposition of caricatures are just that. As parody its representations are too broad to provide the kind of delight one finds in say, "Dr. Strangelove." I wouldn't recommend even wasting a Netflix rental on it.
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely brilliant piece of filmmaking
Review: I remember walking out of the theatre and saying "that was one of the most brilliantly written, brilliantly acted movies I've ever seen." And it was. Nicolas Cage puts together a performance that actually tops his stellarness in "Leaving Las Vegas." What a complex set of characters he plays (twins with totally opposite personalities) and he pulls it off amazingly. The supporting cast is first rate as well. Meryl Streep's character is complex, but as usual, she pulls it off, in fact we've come to expect this kind of performance from Ms. Streep that we sort of just take her for granted. She's excellent nonetheless. Chris Cooper is worthy of his best supporting actor role, he deserved it. The story is a tangled web that weaves the story and the story Nicolas Cage's character is trying to write together - sort of reality and alternate reality. Sounds complicated, but when you consider this movie was put together by the same guys who came up with "Being John Malkovich" I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Line of the film "It's not about what loves you bro, it's about what you love..." An absolute must see!
Rating:
Summary: It's an excellent movie whether you like it or not.
Review: Whether or not one likes this movie does not matter. The fact is, it's one of the most creative films to come out of the Hollywood machine in a long time. It is well scripted, well directed, and, of course, well acted. My theory is that most people who dislike it don't understand it. The first half is supposed to be horrible, because Charlie Kaufman is parodying himself by creating an "artsy" screenplay. The first half is meant to appeal to an indie crowd. This is intentional, because he is in contention with the ideals put forth by McKee. When his brother takes over, he puts McKee's formulaic ideas into practice, complete with ridiculous plot twists and a "Hollywood" happy ending. In this way, Kaufman brilliantly criticizes formulaic screenwriting and his own pretentions. Those who don't get it need to read more. Non-linear storytelling has existed for quite awhile and isn't going away any time soon. Also, if you don't like a movie, please learn how to spell. Poor grammar will only take away your credibility
Rating:
Summary: Thanks to Chris Cooper
Review: I was really disappointed in this Nicholas Cage Vehicle. Cage is a superior actor and his role in this just didn't do it. Chris Cooper was the saving grace in this movie. If it hadn't been for his superior acting this movie would of been a complete flop.
| 
