Adaptation. Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Charlie Kaufman writes the way he lives... With Great Difficulty. His Twin Brother Donald Lives the way he writes... with foolish abandon. Susan writes about life... But can't live it. John's life is a book... Waiting to be adapted. One story... Four Lives... A million ways it can end.
Frequently cynical screenwriter Charlie Kaufman has just taken on a new assignment. That is, to adapt writer Susan Orlean's "The Orchid Thief" into a screenplay, all of it based on the life of the eccentric John Laroche, an exotic plant collector based out of Florida. While his easygoing twin brother Donald, is writing scripts with ease, Charlie finds himself on a perpetual struggle that never seems to end.
| Nicolas Cage | Charlie Kaufman/Donald Kaufman |
| Brian Cox | Robert McKee |
| Chris Cooper | John Laroche |
| Judy Greer | Alice the Waitress |
| Meryl Streep | Susan Orlean |
| Cara Seymour | Amelia Kavan |
| Jim Beaver | Ranger Tony |
| Tilda Swinton | Valerie Thomas |
| Bill Livingston | Marty Bowen |
| Maggie Gyllenhaal | Caroline Cunningham |
| Litefoot | Russell |
| Doug Jones | Augustus Margary |
| Jim Tavaré | Matthew Osceola |
| Stephen Tobolowsky | Ranger Steve Neely |
| Roger Willie | Randy |
| Spike Jonze |
7.80 out of 10 (39351 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Nicolas Cage is an actor !
posted on 30 Aug 2009I mean, until the moment I saw this movie, I thought he was only the big muscle guy who's making Con Air that... uh... dull.In this movie, he's the absolute opposite : he's a bald fat and intellectual loser who dictates his twin brother the way he should not write a scenario.Even the other characters are likeable and delicious : first idealized by NC, they slowly reveal their nasty, nmaughty and dirty personalities, for our greatest pleasure.Definitely worth a watch but not easily DVDable : there are too many surprises to make this (excellent) movie worth a second watch.
sophomoric slouch
posted on 26 Aug 2009Ah, Spike Jonze...the kid who once directed music videos for Weezer...and became the critics' darling with "Being John Malkovich," is now in the safe zone to deliver "Adaptation," a substandard film that, predictably, got some of the most glowing reviews of 2002. For all the hype, it's a remarkably average production, filled with huge distractions in the form of Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper, whose subplot and characters (and their resulting romance) are bland and unconvincing throughout--every time the movie cut away to this duo, it smacked into a brick wall. On the other hand, Nicolas Cage (cast as twin brothers Charlie and Donald Kaufman) gives his best performance in many years, the dual role giving him free reign to play a self-loathing loser and an over-confident himbo; his voice-over narration is some of the funniest I've heard since "The Rules of Attraction." Brian Cox shows up near the end to steal a few scenes as a vulgar screenwriter heading a weekend workshop. To its credit, "Adaptation" has a respectable buildup for the first 1 1/2 acts, then collapses when Streep and Cooper are snorting some coke-substitute and chasing after Charlie in a swamp--if this was a send-up of convention, it certainly didn't work. But, this type of sophomoric ridiculousness is safe to pull off if you are a critics' darling being hailed for your "unique vision." Spare me.5/10
An amazing accomplishment. Probably the best film so far this century
posted on 18 Aug 2009Every once in a while a film comes along that simply electrifies you and pushes the cinematic experience to the highest level of enjoyment. Adaptation is one of those films. It's a huge accomplishment on all levels reaching some of my greatest emotions while entertaining me like no other film.Adaptation is a complex but also realistic account of what people go through creatively. The film follows a writer Charlie Kaufman, played by Nicolas Cage, who is assigned to adapt a book about orchids from a book written by an author by the name of Susan Orlean played by Meryl Streep. The film jumps back in forth beetween Charlies struggle to adapt the book and Susan's struggle to write it while getting the information for it from a weird man by the name of John Laroche.The film jumps back in forth beetween these three people struggling to find meaning in life. Susan's goal is to dedicate herself to something and have that feeling of love and connection to it. Charlie's goal in the film is to connect with Susan while adapting her book.Describing this film is nearly impossible to do considering it incorporates so many elements and breaks into so many genres. Jonze and Kaufman create one of the most original and thought provoking films I've ever seen. It's amazing to be in the hands of two artists with three of the greatest actors around all giving Oscar worth performances. I don't have much more to say about Adaptation. Of course, I could walk you through the plot but that would be like walking you through a trip through the stars. This film is endless and you will not see a film anytime soon that electrifies your emotions and feelings. Just watch these two masters at the pinnacle of their creativity and be amazed. 10-10
The book was muuuuuch better than the movie.
posted on 12 Aug 2009Wow. All I can say is "Wow. $9 was a lot to spend on that movie." Imagine going out to dinner, ordering your meal, and beginning to eat. Your food tastes like Nicolas Cage's acting. Just when you're about to point this out to the waiter, the chef tells you, "Hey, isn't that a bad meal? I'm not gonna refund your money, because it was SUPPOSED to taste bad." Before you could say "Moons Over My Hammy," that food would be tossed across the room. That's kinda like what seeing Adaptation was like, except I couldn't throw the movie across the room. So instead, I'll just say that it sucked... on purpose, right?
Finally...
posted on 08 Aug 2009Finally a different movie. This movie has many meanings, it might be pointless for some people but again I have read reviews of someone who hasn't even seen Fellini's "8 1/2" which is one of those films you must have seen to talk about movies in fact I advice those people to watch any Michael Bay movie then they will find what they are looking for. Also this movie is not really for everyone, it's full of irony, metaphors, satire and it even makes fun of the movie industry in a point of view we haven't seen for ages. I guess this is the best movie I have seen this year.
One of the best screenplays ever written.
posted on 08 Aug 2009This is a great movie. It is the complete opposite of all current film making. The acting is wonderful, compliments the genius screenplay nicely. Jonze is an actor's director, but is also a great visual artist. REQUIRES multiple viewings, as all good films should.
Incredible script
posted on 06 Aug 2009Wow, what a great movie! There were four different stories going on at once. This is one of those movies where the main character is writing the script as its being acted out on screen - and unlike other attempts I've seen at this, this one really works! I've never been a big Nicolas Cage fan, but he can be quite good with the right part (Leaving Las Vegas was another one of his best). The rest of the cast was incredible, but it was really the intricate script that makes it work so well. As an independent film maker myself I know how hard it is to piece something like this together and make it flow so well.
Chris Cooper should be in every movie.
posted on 06 Aug 2009The first time I saw this movie, I was somewhat confused at the end. I liked it, but I was confused. After thinking about it for a while, and the entire situation surrounding the movie, I realized how genuinely genius this film is. Though it's not THAT complicated, thinking about it too much might give you a slight tumor. Constantly thinking about the actual story, and the movie, then the actual story, then what actually happened, then what was written into the movie... it goes on and on. I didn't like Being John Malkovich (Maybe because I was told it was a hysterical comedy. Maybe I just have a tumor and can't tell the difference between good movies and bad movies. Who knows?), but this movie was definitely worth it. Chris Cooper's acting is spectacular, and Nicholas Cage was, to my surprise, very good also. I didn't think he could play this kind of character accurately. Rent this movie, then go buy it. Why? 'Cause Chris Cooper needs to make more movies where he's missing teeth. That's why.
See this for Chris Cooper's performance
posted on 29 Jul 2009**POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD** Describing the plot would just spoil some surprises--let's just say it's a meditation on finding passion and creativity in your life--whether it involves writing or orchid hunting or something else. Nicholas Cage is so good playing twin brothers--Charles, a neurotic, emotionally and professionally blocked screenwriter and Donald, a free-wheeling, slightly goofy and vulgar scriptwriter wannabe--that the person I saw it with briefly thought Cage had a brother who also acted. It was also good to see Meryl Streep play something besides the "martyred/meddling mother" and "inspirational teacher/mentor" roles that most over-40 actresses get stuck playing. As good as they were, however, I wanted to see this because of the wonderful, underrated Chris Cooper. Even when playing a hygiene-challenged, front-toothless, profane orchid poacher, there's something so charismatic, so magnetic about his portrayal that you immediately understand why other characters are drawn to him. Watch the telephone scene when he explains how he lost his mother and uncle and ask yourself why this man doesn't have an Oscar yet. The vulnerability and humor and gravity he brings to what could have been a quirk-filled, mannered role is just amazing. The movie is billed as a comedy-drama, but frankly, it was all dark comedy until the last 15-20 minutes. The abrupt shift was unsettling and, I felt, unnecessary. It changed my feelings from "Wow, how funny and clever and true. What will the writer and director do next?!" to "Why the devil did they do that?" (I would have later sought out the video or DVD so I could watch it again and again until the mood took a U-turn). Earlier in the film, Charles Kaufman attends a screenwriting seminar that espouses such rules as "no voice-overs," "no cheating the audience," "no deus ex machina (spelling?)." Maybe the director and writer wanted to prove that they could throw the rules out the window. To me, they went too far and made me wish they'd ended the movie 10-20 minutes earlier. Irony's fine--but NOT kicking the slats out from under your audience is better. The plot twist isn't exactly a "movie-killer", but for me, it changed the film from one I loved to one I could admire 80% of. Bottom line: See it for the lead performances--especially Chris Cooper's and Spike Jonze's wild, clever visuals. Also be prepared to have a sudden desire to read "The Orchid Thief." (I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when the real Susan Orlean and John L. saw their portrayals on screen. They must have a great ability to laugh at themselves).
The last act of Adaptation
posted on 29 Jul 2009Why is everyone hissy fitting over the last act of Adaptation? Hints were given throughout the movie that it was going to be completely different.
Adaptation, an evolution of 8 1/2, becomes funniest during this last part and demonstrates the evolution (or devolution) of story telling. First, there is reality. Then an article is written about an incident in reality.
The article becomes a book. The book is adapted into a movie. Each adaptation requires a change, especially to film. What is gripping in a book is boring in the pictures. Elements that may not be obvious in the book are flushed out and expounded upon. The story evolves, stays fresh. This is how the oral stories or yester-centuries survived for so long.
Bards changed and updated them as the circumstances required. For Adaptation, an element of crime was added for movie-goer today who just see films as a way to waste time, to justify why they spent $6 bucks to see a 2-hour long movie.
Adaptation is flawless. This is the movie that explains what story telling is all about.
Finally a movie with a tagline that has some meaning.
posted on 27 Jul 2009Adaptation has a rather lengthy tagline, but the thing that I like about it is that, with the exception of the last six words, it is a tagline that summarizes the movie rather than advertises it. This is a rare film that is about its own creation and all of the adaptation that goes on in the lives of the people involved. Nicholas Cage takes on one of the smartest and most complex roles he's ever done, playing the parts of Charlie Kaufman and his fictional twin brother Donald, both of whom are screenwriters with polarly opposite ways of living (or not living) life and dealing with the world.Meryl Streep plays the part of Susan Orlean, the author of the novel `The Orchid Thief,' which Charlie is desperately trying to adapt into a worthy film version, the hugely talented Chris Cooper takes on the toothless role of John Laroche, a man who is strangely proficient at adapting to the slings and arrows of the world around him, yet not quite that great at getting anywhere in life. He lives a rather run-down life, but escapes criticism for it because he seems so content with his situation.My favorite story here is the one dealing with Charlie and his twin brother Donald. Charlie is an introverted screenwriter who is incapable of approaching the writer of the novel that he is adapting, and he is so determined to create a great film out of a book that he enormously admires (and is enormously confused by), that it nearly drives him insane. His brother, on the other hand, takes some quick, cheap screenwriting class at some adult night school just to learn the absolute basics of screenwriting, and he throws together a huge hit, based on an idea that Charlie gave him as a joke.I saw Adaptation the same day that I saw National Security, About Schmidt, and Catch Me If You Can, and National Security was playing on the biggest screen. This is a travesty of modern society and the commerciality of today's cinema. THAT is what this part of Adaptation was about, and it's a message for audiences, because we are the ones responsible for the abysmal decline of the quality of modern movies. The reason that we are flogged with ridiculous movies like National Security and American Pie and Scary Movie and Big Momma's House and Donald's `The 3' is because we buy the tickets.If George Lucas filmed an old washing machine spin-cycling itself across an old wooden floor, lit only by a single naked light bulb, and he called it Episode III, people would buy tickets by the millions, it would make tons of money, and then it would become a trend seen in movies to follow. Granted, that's not going to happen, but that is what Adaptation is trying to say. The people who write good movie scripts get yelled at by the lecturers of cheap screenwriting classes, and they go insane trying to get their intelligent movies seen by the public, who are not always as intelligent or receptive to intelligence as is often assumed during the screenwriting process.(spoilers) The part of John Laroche also parallels this descent into barbarism that the movie points out, as it presents Laroche as a man who has suffered a lot of bad situations and circumstances in life, but who adapts to what comes his way and gets along by whatever means are available and wherever the money happens to be at any certain time. He is at one point collecting beautiful orchids, which happens to be illegal except that he's collecting them for Indians, who have rights because of their traditional heritage, and because he never touches them. Sure, it turns out that the Indians use them for drug purposes, but he later turns to online employment, creating a pornographic website and amazing himself at how much money he brings in regardless of how terrible the content may be.Both of these professions are not the most respectable, but they illustrate a transition from nature to technology and from hallucinogens extracted from flowers to technology and pornography. This is an unmistakable step downward for society, because John represents a lower class of people who are intermingling with a higher class, such as authors of intellectual novels (such as Susan Orlean, with whom Laroche has a twisted sexual affair) and the screenwriters who adapt them into films. We live in a melting pot society, and it is up to everyone from the top of the social scale (however you may personally define it) to the bottom to prevent ourselves from reversing the process of evolution.Adaptation is not an easy movie to understand. It has a lot of strange twists and it looks back at itself across the barrier between a movie and it's own creation, intertwining a lot of different storylines and even ending in a climax that seems to belong in an entirely different movie, if not even an entirely different genre. But the film has an important message to deliver, not just about what kinds of movies people watch and the results of these ticket sales, but also about the overall state of American society and the ways that some people are forced to live in it. I can certainly understand a lot of people being put off by this film, it's not easy to follow, not easy to understand at many points, and not easy to swallow, but it is surely worth the effort to recognize what it's trying to say.
Excellent, entertaining, suspenseful
posted on 21 Jul 2009I really enjoyed this movie. It was interesting trying to figure out whether Nicolas Cage's character had a double personality or really had a twin brother. I liked the way the movie had a prolonged climax, at times you may get restless watching this film, but overall it is worth it. It made me buy the book Orchid Thief
This is not merely an Adaptation
posted on 19 Jul 2009In a time where it seems that all movies are destined to be a re-make or a film version of a novel, comic-book, TV series, etc., "Adaptation" comes to the rescue and restores your faith in expecting something great out of an original story.Although the title itself contradicts my very point, "Adaptation" is nowhere near being such a thing. The movie is about it's own writer, Charlie Kaufman. A man whose quest to adapt the book "The orchid thief" takes him instead to writing the story of 'how' he attempted to adapt it. So, as you see, they might tell you the screenplay is based on "The orchid thief" but it's not at all. The book is more like a starting point. The movie is all about Kaufman.So, as the movie progresses you find yourself watching the very same images that Kaufman is describing in his screenplay. It's kind of watching the painter painting himself painting that same painting. And I absolutely loved this approach.Nicholas Cage absolutely transformed himself to become Charlie Kaufman... and his brother Donald. His performance is very touching being the desperate Charlie and the lovable Donald. By the time you find out there is actually no Donald in real life, you wish there was. Great performances also from Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper, playing the writer of "The orchid thief" and the man who inspired her.I really hope there are more films like this done in the future. It think "Adaptation" is a very interesting, intimate and sincere story about overcoming challenges and becoming the person you want to be. (Feb/03)
Original and daring
posted on 19 Jul 2009I agree this movie is not intended to satisfy all tastes, but I was amazed at its originality and the sequences they use to get into the story and transform it from a deep reflection into an adventure. Streep is (again) perfect, she always gives a high added value to her films. Cooper is incredibly good too. I also admired the reality that Cage projects to his character. I found the film challenging and smart.
Amazing!
posted on 17 Jul 2009Adaptation is a fantastic movie that had me gripped from beginning to end. Meryl Streep is as ever brilliant and Nicholas Cage and Chris Cooper are superb. The film is funny, interesting, unusual and great all at once. Definatly one of the best films of 2002 and in my top ten for sure.
Another Jonze film with integrity and guts (slight spoiler)
posted on 15 Jul 2009Call it an insider's joke, or call it "smart," even if you mean it as an epithet. But don't complain about the last 20 minutes...because hating the last 20 minutes suggests that a) you don't get the Moebius-strip nature of the entire work or b) you do get it, but you're so smugly superior to hack/alter-ego Hollywood screenwriting that you can't tolerate it even when it serves a purpose. A Christmas-season analogy: would you go to hear Handel's Messiah, enjoy almost all of it because you haven't heard it that much before, and then bitch afterwards that the "Hallelujah Chorus" part at the end was too familiar? It's too familiar because it's the distilled, often-substituted version of a great work, and "Donald's" final 20 minutes of this film is the distilled, plot-addled, shoot-em-up version of Charlie's elegy on the search for pure beauty and survival within the swamp of pop culture. It doesn't negate the earlier humor, pathos and performances, it completes them.
This is not a perfect film, but it's exactly the kind of communication I want from directors in Hollywood. It is about ten times more illuminating as an outsider's meditation on insider film-making than "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back," and equivalent, possibly better than "The Player." I expect it will move Jonze's career forward. Kudos to Carter Burwell for another exceptional score, too.
Is this movie too intelligent for the common movie-goer?
posted on 03 Jul 2009Many of the negative comments I've read seem to take this film WAY too seriously. This wickedly insightful screenplay about the neurotic, BS rules of Hollywood and movie making does precisely what it is supposed to do.
Steering off into a completely unexpected final third maintains Kaufman's integrity, not betrays it. This is unique and intelligent film making.
"Adaptation" is loaded with dialogue that makes you think and relate. Like the Coen brothers, Charlie Kaufman gets films made that don't offer pat and simplistic stories. No, this movie is not for everybody, and I think that's the point.
Well done
posted on 01 Jul 2009What a wild ride! You certainly don't expect that when you begin watching it. Nicholas Cage gives an outstanding performance in the duel roles and really makes you believe he is playing two entirely different people. Chris Cooper is wonderful in his supporting part as the eccentric orchid thief. He truly makes you see him as that character and his oscar was well deserved.
As always, Meryl Streep is fabulous. She cares about all the characters she plays and always makes you get to know them.At its core, this movie has a soul and a purpose that truly rewards the viewer. It's also informative to aspiring screenwriters. 8.5/10
An exquisite mess
posted on 30 Aug 2009You know even as you're watching the exquisite mess that Spike Jonze has made of Charlie Kaufman's adaptation of a Susan Orleans book that there's going to be a lot of gushing over the movie, but not necessarily for the right reasons.It's a strong, interesting work, but it's also uneven, convoluted, unfocussed and shamelessly sentimental. The script deconstructs itself: we watch the screenwriter Kaufman trying to write the movie that we're watching. He's so bad at it, so insecure, so full of self-loathing and pretentious notions of what a writer is, that we'd never believe he's going to finish the script except that we're watching the end result of it. Believing that Charlie Kaufman can write is like trying to believe in God: too many signs point to "no", but then, we're here, aren't we?While the concept of the film at first strikes one as impeccably brilliant, the truth is almost all writers have at least dabbled in the arguably self-indulgent trick of showing the work-in-progress being written, and most got the impulse out of the way in undergraduate creative writing class.While the possible banality of the movie's main metaphor doesn't rule out it's achieving greatness on its own terms, one would like to see all the moaning about writing add up to something (about writing...and life).
Ultimately, though, Adaptation settles for being clever. Its gushy ending isn't really earned on the screen, but only by, I think, our collective desire to see poor Charlie Kaufman come out on top, even if we aren't sure what he's come out on top of.Jonze's direction is sparkly. He made his name directing music videos and he's not afraid to pull out the stops when he feels like it. The best scenes interweave Kaufman's neurotic voice-over with the contrapuntal vulgarity of Hollywood with a rhythm that turns the film into a fast-paced collage. Jonze struggles to elicit the normal cadence of conversation from his actors, though, when he settles in to more straightforward dramatic scenes.
There's always something a little off about the beat of the dialog, the actors' performances seem to come and go, and the editing can get downright clunky. The deliberately trashy third act feels like bad television, and not in a good way.Nicholas Cage plays Charlie Kaufman and his twin brother Donald. It's a lot to ask of the strapping Cage: to play not one, but two chubby, neurotic, nebbishy screenwriters. He pulls it off, effortlessly. If it isn't his best performance, it's certainly his most impressive self-transformation.
The rest of the cast entertains but has a hard time finding traction, in part because the way the story is hacked up into flashbacks, flash-forwards, and memories calls attention to the unevenness of tone between the different segments of the movie.While Adaptation isn't a masterpiece, at times it is painfully funny (particularly Cage's recurring masturbation scenes). It's really a must-see movie for anyone who's a writer, and as the movie suggests, who isn't?