I guess if you think you're smart and an extreme film buff, then you could go with the flow of critics and give this one 5 stars, but if you're looking for anything even remotely entertaining as "Being John Malchovich", then you will be sorely sorry you decided on this piece of fluff.
The story moves at a snails pace, the acting is sub-par(Don't even know why Chris Cooper got an Oscar) and the only chemistry going for it, is Nicolas Cage playing off of...Nicolas Cage.
It's not as smart or intellectually stimulating as "Malchovich", and I know it's not the same movie, but when you have the same director and writer, you do expect something close to being as original and funny as "Being John".
Skip it, you won't miss anything in this over-hyped and uninteresting film.

this is one of the worst comedies i've seen, it's an okay movie, the only reason it's okay its because of nick cage. other than that it's dumb

Ok, so this is inside baseball, Hollywood-style, with the script merging with the mind of the script-writer. It's still very entertaining stuff, especially the voice-overs by the nervous Cage character. Cage's double-lead is exceptionally well done. Literate stuff, and only one or two gunshots and a couple of violent car accidents. Not bad for Hollywood.

Everyone has heard of this movie, very few people seem to have seen it. I was skeptical at first too, but I loved it.

Nicolas Cage plays two roles and nails them both. The story is confusing at first, but it all makes since in the end. Good movie, great characters, youll enjoy this film.

Very interesting film, one might think through out most of the first portion of the movie that Charlies character has some sort of disease where he see's another version of himself, but that's what I thought because I over analyzed it. It really is just his twin brother. So overall, it was good, and totally worth the $3 I spent renting it.

Adaptation had my attention until the strange and boring second half. The only thing I liked about this dark comedy was Nicholas Cage and Chris Cooper, they are the two finest actors around. Meryl Streep wasn't designed for this type of role, she overacts sometimes. I cannot even explain the plot, it is so confusing. I was expecting greatness, jeez Spike Jones is out of his freakin' mind! Don't waste your money on this lackluster comedy.

Nicolas Cage is wonderful here. His performance is completely convincing. You never doubt for a moment that there are really twins on screen together. Chris Cooper is excellent as John Laroche, probably the movie's most interesting character. I'm very pleased that he won the Oscar for this role.

It has been one of the most enjoyable and rewarding movie-viewing experiences, I've had in a long time. See it more than once and let it forever alter your perspective on Hollywood films.

Adaptation is one of those movies that most folks don't seem to appreciate. I have a friend who I respect a great deal and who is also in this group of people. She wanted to know why I would rate the film so highly when I'm clearly not stupid. "It's amazing and deep," I told her. "Really, how so?" she asked me. And when I thought about it, I found that though I felt very strongly about my statement, I could not tell her why I felt this way. I decided to watch the film again with this in mind and here is what I discovered...

The film opens with Charlie asking himself the age-old questions about who he is and why he exists. We're then taken through a few scenes that simultaneously set up Charlie as a man who is clearly a passionate intellectually--perhaps even a genius--yet thoroughly uncomfortable in his own skin. He's looking not just for his place in the world, but his place within himself. I think that this distinction is key in the film.

Charlie is trying to find himself by stretching his creative process through his writing. I don't think that he knows that he's on a personal search in this process--he just knows that he has to reach deep within to create his screenplay or he will not be satisfied. He's scared of this exploration and his fear keeps him from writing what he wants to write, how he wants to write it. This is analogous to his life, where fear is preventing him from doing a number of things. Most importantly, it's preventing him from knowing himself.

His fear also comes to light in his dating life. He does not believe that he has worth and therefore he can not see that the woman he is interested in is also interested in him. This is so pronounced to be almost ridiculous as to the audience she is clearly not just fiends but thinks that she is dating him and wants to move the relationship forward.

The parallel story of Susan and Laroche is also one of searching. Susan is not happy but does not know it. She realized that she has a lack of passion (as a counter point to Charlie) and discovers that she is not just unhappy but is also full of an undefined want. Laroche is full of passion but is unfulfilled and looks outside of himself for fulfillment--throwing himself into things to try to develop and understand his passion. His lack of growth is played out metaphorically by leading to his fate at the end of the movie.

When I first started looking at Laroche in the context of the film, I felt that he was an underdeveloped (though very fun and funny) character in the face of the other, deeper characters of Susan and Charlie. Upon further inspection I realized that we do get to know him a great deal and that my initial feeling matched one of the main points of the film. I wanted Laroche to learn something--as characters do in "Hollywood" movies. He does not truly learn anything and that leads to his fate--which is in itself a very Hollywood thing in a very un-Hollywood film.

When Susan and Laroche make a dial tone together, they begin to see that they are what they are looking for in each other. Unfortunately Susan just finds something to be passionate about, but does not deal with her desire to be passionate and lack of understanding of passion. She gains an understanding at a terrible price by the end of the film. She does this by only looking outside of herself and not looking inside.

Charlie's brother Donald is at the same time someone who Charlie wants to be and someone who he does not want to be. Charlie wants to retain his introspective genius and gain Donald's easy nature. When Charles starts to ask for/accepts Donald's help, Charlie begins to find the things in himself that he's missing. It's less of a journey of discovery and more of a journey of action. The key to this journey of action, however, is that he is open to its lessons due to the great amount of work he's done looking into himself. Once he sees that the journey is about him, he can take its lessons truly to heart.

Susan's desire to be a baby--to be new--relates to us the seriousness of taking a journey outside of one's self to see inside without a simultaneous and perhaps deeper journey inside.

The "Hollywood" nature of the film that is not thought of as a "Hollywood movie" is genius. Charles breaks all of the rules of writing to create a masterpiece save for one--to find that thing, that conflict, that something that happens. Everything that Charlie does not want in the movie is in the movie--but none of it comes off as being "Hollywood." This is masterful. And he uses the character of the screenwriting lecturer--the guy who is prepackaging the writing process as though it's a formula--to show that it is a formula, but it is one that mixed properly, can produce something that you don't expect--something that is better and feels different than anything before it, though it still uses all of the things that you're used to and that you expect.

So upon this further reflection, I have an answer for my friend. Adaptation is amazing and deep because the journey of personal discovery that's taken in very small but deeply significant steps is seriously touching and important. To realize that these small steps in life can take you such a far distance is a powerful thing. Combining that lesson with the technical excellence used by Spike Jonze with one actor for two roles along with the writing genius of using and calling out all of the things you expect in a "Hollywood movie" in this "art house" film makes Adaptation an important and soul-stirring movie.

A big reason why I think I love `Adaptation' so much is the mere fact that I thought I was going to hate it. Aside from Meryl Streep, who is unarguably a goddess of film, there really isn't anyone in the cast who draws me, and Nicolas Cage in my humble opinion is a terrible actor. So, it's safe to say that my expectations for this film were very low and so when the film grabbed me by the collar and drew me in for it's entirety I was blown away by my response to it. `Adaptation' truly is a brilliant film. It's witty, quirky, funny, engrossing and, above all else, truly original.

The film revolves around screenwriter Charlie Kaufman as he attempts to adapt a non-fiction novel for the screen, a novel that upon reading he discovers is unadaptable. This novel, entitled `The Orchid Thief', is somewhat plotless and ultimately boring. While the idea and or proposition was flattering the task is proving to be a much bigger one then Charlie had initially intended. But Charlie has more than just this one problem in his lap. Charlie's twin brother has suffered a sudden serge of writers fever and his apparent niche for the profession is driving Charlie mad. As Charlie battles himself over how to proceed with the script we see in flashbacks the writer Susan Orlean as she meets and falls deeply in love the `the orchid thief' himself John Laroche.

This film is truly an actor's showcase with everyone in the cast taking a hold of their character and fleshing them out beautifully. Chris Cooper is fantastic as the eccentric Laroche and Meryl Streep is her usual brilliance, but this time raising the bar so-to-speak. Her performance as Susan Orlean is deliciously orgasmic. She's stunning, heartbreaking, impish and completely insane, all within seconds of one another and they all mesh so well with the character she's created. She becomes the focus of our attention, especially as the film draws to a close.

Nicolas Cage though is undoubtedly the star of this film and he delivers more than I ever thought he would. I personally find Cage to be a bore of an actor who rarely ever sells it. I've found him intriguing in a few films but never to the magnitude that is `Adaptation'. Here, playing two completely different characters, he is able to distinguish them as separate while still building a foundation of similarity to classify them as brothers, as twins. He's reserved, quiet and agitated one minute, then outlandish, outgoing and obnoxious the next. I still am in shock at how wonderfully on point he really was here.

Screenwriter Charlie Kaufman is a brilliant writer and his films are some of the most ingenious of the bunch. I can see this happening to him, his taking `The Orchid Thief' and wondering just how he is going to make it approachable and entertaining and then it hits him and `Adaptation' is born. Coincidentally that is just what happened here for the film is based off of Kaufman's struggle to adapt this very novel. Who ever thought a movie about flowers would be this engrossing.

I highly recommend this masterclass of a film to anyone wanting a unique and intriguing trip through the world of modern cinema. It rarely gets better than this.

This movie was a waste of time. Pointless.
Certainly not worth seeing a second time.
I like Nicolas Cage, but why? What was he thinking?
Not a good career move. Boring. Bad apple. Rotten egg.

A brilliant meta-narrative and hilarious spoof of Hollywood's formulaic approach to telling stories, "Adaptation" is the brainchild of Jonze and real-life writer Kaufman, who teamed earlier on "Being John Malkovich." In fact, Kaufman really was hired to adapt the Orleans book, and took a chance writing a fun, zany, highly inventive script about his neurotic inability to wedge it into a conventional plot structure. He also invented a fictitious alter ego, twin brother Donald, who despite being a noodle-brained philistine, knows how to write a crack blockbuster. Cage's sweaty, balding, uncomfortable turn in both roles is pure angst-filled genius.

I'm not going to waste my time giving a plot synopsis of this movie. In fact, its rather difficult to give a proper review, as this movie goes in so many different directions and has so many different themes and ideas behind it. However, unlike most movies that do this, this one doesn't fail. Quite the opposite, it succeeds in just about every aspect that it can, in my opinion. Definitely one of the best movies I've ever seen.

A follow-on to Being John Malkovich, this film also explores the nature of reality, but goes one step further and considers the nature of the creative process. As the film proceeds, the viewer is constantly exposed to comments about what is happening on the screen (e.g., "Never use voice-overs") which are amusing but also distracting. Viewers interested in the nature of the creative process, especially screenwriting, will find this technique interesting, others will find it distracting.

In any event, rather than being a follow-on in the conventional sense, this film contains actors and sets from Malkovich, which means you will understand it better if you see the earlier film.

Your enjoyment of the film will also be enhanced if you read The Orchid Thief: A True Story of Beauty and Obsession (Ballantine Reader's Circle) by Susan Orlean first. The film is based on, and remarkably true to, this book. The book is enjoyable in its own right, but reading it will give you a feeling for the problems faced by Charlie Kaufman in writing the screenplay.

After appearing in "Being John Malkovich," Cameron Diaz reportedly said, "There are 14 standard plots in Hollywood. This is the 15th.", suggesting how unusual these two films are.

But they are also different. While "Being John Malkovich" has an ending that fits the film, here the ending is contrived, which fits the overall plot but is likely to leave the average viewer dissatisfied.

I preferred the way this film blended reality and fiction over the way it was done in "Being John Malkovich" (Which is by the same writer and director).

This is one of those movie experiences where you know the flim's creators want you to know they are trying to play mind-games on you. ;)

The filming of "Being John Malkovich" is part of this film's story-line, so it does help to have seen "Being John M." before seeing this film.

Look, I understand very well that I'm supposed to find this thing "brilliant, innovative, unique" and so forth. But to begin with, the storyline of making a movie about making a movie is old, tired, and absolutely lackng in originality. This yawner wastes a good cast in telling a ho-hum tale about a mediocre writer. By the end of this thing, I really wanted those 90 minutes of my life back. The humor is lame, the situations are absurd, and the plot is devoid of interest.

I enjoyed Adaptation a lot. It is very very clever and very funny. Nicolas Cage, Chris Cooper, and Meryl Streep all do a great job and bring it together into one coherent (sort-of) ending.

The movie is about the process of writing a screenplay from another source, but turns into an examination of the creative process, and how it relates to the creators (writers). Nicolas Cage plays the inhibited, smart, unhappy screenwriter Charlie Kaufmann, who is charged with turning "The Orchid Thief" into a film. He also plays Charlie's identical twin brother, Donald, who is everything Charlie is not, but also aspires to be a screenwriter. Charlie Kaufmann, btw, is the real writer of "Adaptation," but it is credited to both him and Donald (who is a character in the film, and not a real person). In fact the film is dedicated to Donald (Donald Kaufmann, btw, also has an entry in IMDB as a screenwriter).

Also writing is Susan Orlean (played by Meryl Streep), whose book "The Orchard Thief" Charlie is working to adapt for film. Susan has her own struggles with the creative process. The focus for all this creative energy is LaRoche, the Orchid Thief of the title, whose obsession with collecting orchids is at the heart of the movie. I think it is pretty interesting how LaRoche is the character who feels the most strongly about his passion, while the two writers circle around him and try to find something in their own lives they feel strongly about. Chris Cooper is completely convincing as LaRoche, and it is a relief to see him playing something besides a government bureaucrat or a military officer.

I laughed a lot at the scenes where Charlie attends a seminar on screenwriting. I actually use some of the "tips" to judge movies (for examle, never ever use a voiceover ...)

Although I had fun watching this movie, I am not sure that I would call it a really good movie (definitely not a great movie). Behind all the amusing connections and intricate story lines, I am just not sure that there is all that much there. I enjoyed it a lot, although I doubt that I will remember much about it a year from now.

Plot Summary: Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage) struggles to adapt a book into a screenplay.
Reason for the Rating: Language, sexuality, some drug use, and violent images.
Bizarre. Crazy. Zany. Quirky.
Any of these words accurately describes Adaptation, so be prepared to pay attention when you're watching this one! Charlie Kaufman is a real-life screenwriter with several television series to his credit, and the also quirky and bizarre film Being John Malkovich. Adaptation picks up with the filming of Being John Malkovich, showing Charlie on the set of that movie. He's a man who loathes himself, who cannot complete a thought, and who is bound by fear.
Charlie is hired to adapt the real-life non-fiction book, The Orchid Thief, into a movie. The author, Susan Orleans, is a real person portrayed here by Meryl Streep, and the book is about an ego-centric real-life orchid expert named John Laroche (remarkably played by Chris Cooper). This much is all true. The rest...who can say? Charlie labors over the screenplay, and bits of what he writes are interspersed with sections where he laments his loser status in life. Mixed into the plot is Charlie's twin brother Donald (also played by Cage, but who does not exist in real life, and who, despite the tributes in the end credits of the movie, never did exist) who can't seem to get a job so tries his hand a screenwriting, and, despite his blithe oblivion to the realities of life and Charlie's expert advice, succeeds.
At times Adaptation is slow and filled with voice-overs to convey Charlie's thoughts about life, the evolution process, and how, according to Darwin, we've all adapted to various situations to become who we are today. At other times it's shockingly violent, absurdly funny, and down-right sad.
Besides the violence, sex, and drug use, Christians may find the message of evolution and adaptation offensive. Yet there is truth that we do adapt to the situations of our lives, and that these changes define us. The movie also encourages viewers to consider the passions of our lives. While the passions of those in the movie may seem bizarre, they demonstrate the meaning people find in life through what they love and pursue--and how futile these passions are outside of knowing God.

Nappaland.com Recommends: Adaptation is only for mature viewers who want to think about what they've seen. Even though there are plenty of funny moments, this one could spark serious discussion about pursuing our passions and facing our fears.

After the Show...If members of your family choose to view this movie, use these questions to spark discussion about it afterward:
---Consider each of the main characters in Adaptation. What is the passion of each one? How does pursuing these passions change the lives of these people? What are you passionate about in your own life? How do you pursue this passion, and what difference do your actions make?
---When Donald and Charlie are hiding in the swamp they have a discussion about love. What do you think of Donald's views of loving others? How does what Donald shares change Charlie? How could embracing this view change your relationships?
---Charlie is a recognized screenwriter and appears to be successful to those in his business. But in reality he's filled with doubts and fears that keep him from growing and enjoying life. In what ways are you like Charlie? How can you move beyond the fears that might be trapping you?

AN

Why I mention that is there is a real Charlie Kaufman and there
is a real Susan Orlean. However, the writers of this film,
allowed Spike Jonze and the rest of the crew to use those
names.

The plot:

Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage) wants to make an adaptation
of Susan Orlean's (Meryl Streep) book THE ORCHID TRIEF for
the silver screen. The story was about John Laroche (Chris
Cooper, in this movie) a thief who steals orchid plants
with his gang. However, Kaufman has a few problems when
his brother Donald (also Cage) has him go see Orlean, leading
to a few problems. Incidentally (and this was not in the real
book), Orlean develops a forbidden love with Laroche, which
leads to more problems. May be a drama, but this black
comedy (written by the real Charlie Kaufman and the probably
imaginary Donald Kaufman, whom the credits depicted, died)
is too confusing but once it starts, it just entertains.
Stick with the credits to see a quote from Donald's
fictioary film THE 3.

You film buffs should know:

That was a real scene on the set of BEING JOHN MALKOVICH
where John Malkovich, Lance Acord (the director of photo-
graphy) and Thomas Smith are commanding the film (Fact:
Kaufman was the screenwriter of that film)

That's Curtis Hanson (director of L.A. CONFIDENTIAL)
as Orlean's husband.

`Adaptation' was a huge surprise for me. I was almost completely certain I was going to hate this film. I didn't know much if anything about it but I knew it starred TWO Nicholas Cage's and I generally cannot stand him so I never bothered to watch it until last week when I raided the local Blockbuster for almost every movie released in 2002 and figured I might as well give it a try. At this point it's resting at my number two spot of favorite films of that year, `The Pianist' just barely squeezing in front of it.

What was most surprising to me was not the fact that the plot intrigued me or that the film entertained me but was the fact that Nicolas Cage blew me away. As twin's Charlie and Donald Kaufman, Cage completely develops two completely different characters, embodying each of their personality traits to the full. He's at one moment reserved and disclosed, nervous and insecure and in the next he's funny and outgoing, confident and hapless. That takes true talent, and with this role Cage proved he had it.

As Charlie, Cage plays a fictional version of the screenwriter himself who has been asked to adapt bestseller `The Orchid Thief' into a script. He's immediately flattered that he was approached with the assignment but he's soon overwhelmed and frustrated with the mere fact that the novel has almost no plot and thus wouldn't be able to satisfy the viewing public. He's also increasingly annoyed with his twin Donald's newfound desire and supposed niche for screenwriting as well and his compulsive and relentless badgering is beginning to wear thin on Charlie's patience and sanity.

Meryl Streep is also fantastic, as usual, in flashbacks as Susan Orlean, the writer of the novel. As Charlie contemplates the direction the film would take we see Susan in her adventures with `the orchid thief' himself John Laroche (Chris Cooper in his Oscar winning role), as she slowly falls in love with him and his line of work. It's not really until the end though that Meryl starts to stun me once again with her brilliant character development and utter ability to transform herself into someone she's never been before. She was cunning, stunning, breathtaking, heartbreaking and somewhat insane within seconds of each other.

With great supporting performances by a long list of great actors and actresses including Tilda Swinton, Ron Livingston, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Brian Cox, `Adaptation' sits nicely on the shelf of great films that I won't soon forget and will be one that I recommend and enjoy for a long time to come. This may be one of the nicest cinematic surprises I've ever had for Lord knows I didn't expect much, but I sure received quite a bit!

I am a shy person, and I can truly relate to this movie, so much so that it is a little scary.

Charlie Kaufman is the main character, a self concious screenwriter who is jealous of his twin brother Donald, but there is so much more to this film.

Definitally one of my all-time favorite movies.

A must see.

To call this movie odd is an understatement. But I just read Orchid Fever: A Horticultural Tale of Love, Lust, and Lunacy and read The Orchid Thief earlier. It seems that an odd movie is all you can make of this subculture.
Meryl Streep in luminous, as usual and Nicholas cage pulls off a self-conscious screenwriter with bad hair, but it was Chris Cooper who blew me away with his Oscar winning performance of John Laroche. That alone, was worth the price of admission.
The ending got a bit out of hand, but by the time we get there, we realize that it fits perfectly onto this wacky, brilliant movie.

From the same mind that brought us 'Being John Malkovich' and 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' (an equally great film). Did you really get this one, or are you just fooling yourself? Trust me, there is more going on here than meets the eye. Deconstruction is in order to really appreciate this one.

When discussing a movie, one usually praises the characters, plot, scenery, music or directing. In the case of ADAPTATION one can safely say that no one of these elements outshone the others. All were superb and that is what makes the film a semi-cult classic. The multi-level story seems complex at first but it is a case where the story "writes itself".

A writer for the New Yorker (Meryl Streep) reads about a man who tried to steal the mythical "Ghost" orchid from a swamp. She decides this would make a good article and meets the man, a rough redneck "character" who is the opposite of her well-heeled, erudite, liberal, boring crowd. She has an obscene fascination with the man we he draws her into his world of serial obsessions. The article eventually becomes a best-selling novel and Cage, a serious moody writer, is chosen to make the conversion to cinema.

The audience sees events unfolding in various points in time: Streep and the orchid man draw close, she speaks of her boredom, Cage struggles with life, love and the screenplay. Cage's fratboy twin writes a horror screenplay using every Hollywood cliche and it is an overnight success. Cage relents and asks his brother for help in finishing his own play (he knows something is missing) and they discover the truth. The Ghost contains an LSD-like drug and Streep is as addicted to it as she is to the Orchid man. The four unit for an explosive ending that I will not give away.

The playwright and director(Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze) have again worked their magic with subtle nuances and rich cinematic artistry. Streep, who seems attracted to "stories within stories" was perfect as the modern woman is search of passion. Cooper, as the strange Larouche (Orchid Man), comes off authentic, a hick intellectual who is more "real" than his New York counterparts. My grade: A+

i really dont like movies that are 2-hours-long in jokes, and that is what this felt like. ive never much liked nicolas cage, and getting to see him in TWO roles doesnt do much for me. i liked chris cooper, but of course there was also the presence of the brilliant (sarcasm meter should be going bonkers here) miss streep, which in combo with cage and the glibness of the overall concept makes this one to avoid.

Yes.
The movie is based on an interesting premise that the screenplay is being written for the movie as you are watching it. And yes, there is dark comedy and tongue-in-cheek here, especially the ending where they give in to what the Hollywood audience presumably craves.

And no.
After you figure out what is happening, is it really all that interesting? And why use "The Orchid Thief" as the center of (or rather off center to) the movie's plot. I did grow tired very quickly of the maudlin ramblings of the screenwriter.

However, 4 stars it gets from me because it does manage to depict the orchid hunter's character quite well, and really does provide an insightful look into such a passionate pursuit.

The best thing about this film is the last few minutes where "some real action" took place. It was pretty much what won the movie over for me. There is a dialogue I quote in a lot of conversations I have cause I found it very interesting. The film on the whole isn't something I would truly call "worth watching" but then again the day after I was thinking about the movie and it seemed to evoke certain new thoughts in me.

Overall - 7/10

Chris Cooper was good but was the role really meant for him? Nicholas Cage's role was different and substantial. The author's role was good, disliked the character. Confusing start,slow storyline, the film is absoultely non-commercial and has a lot of conviction with it.

So good. So very, very good. Nick Cage is amazing in this. Simply amazing. Kaufman is glorious in all his genius. Cooper, my hat is off. Wonderful. Streep, my love, just beautiful. You are always so in tune and live. You re performances transcend the screen like none other. Brian Cox, you had me fooled for a good while and unable to tell yourself from McKee. Played perfectly and quite hilarious. I treasure your moments on screen.

This is a 4 and a half, and damnit, with some sense I ll get over my treasured full five and give it out a little more often. And when I do this film will be getting a five first.

Outstanding!

...worth repeated viewings!

Spike Jonze (director) and Charlie Kaufman (screenwriter) have done it again, this is on par with "Being John Malkovich," another masterpiece they put together! Strikingly original, beautifully shot and acted, the ending might seem a bit disappointing until you figure out how it works within the movie's overall structure as a movie about making/writing movies.

ADAPTATION is certainly one of the most original movies I've seen in some time. One can't label this any particular genre, and the movie boasts some fine performances from its excellent cast. Although it may take viewers some time into the movie before they realize exactly what's going on, one can't deny its hypnotic appeal. Nicolas Cage (nominated for a Best Actor oscar) plays twin brothers, Charlie and Donald Kaufman (actually credited for the screenplay, but there isn't any Donald!) and Cage is superb in delineating the differences between these two brothers; the brilliant as always Meryl Streep is luminous in the role of Susan Orleans, the author of THE ORCHID THIEF, which Cage is trying to adapt for the screen; and Oscar winner Chris Cooper is perfect as John Laroche, the Orchid Thief, whose quest for passion in life becomes Streep's driving force. The movie appears to be showing how you can take a basically plotless and boring book and throw in the expected violence and romance and come up with a movie, however one that is nowhere near what the book was all about.
I wish I could jump on the critics bandwagon and say how brilliant the film is, but in spite of its originality, it just wasn't that entertaining and/or appealing to me. Although any movie with Streep is worth at least one viewing.

The Customer Reviews on this film are averaging 3.5 stars, at the time of this review, and that fits it right.

Charlie Kaufman (Nicholas Cage) is a screenplay-writer who is asked to adapt the book "The Orchid Thief" by Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) into a film, but Charlie hates himself, is miserable, is locked in a rut of self-denigrating rumination, and cannot find a good movie in the book. Charlie's identical twin brother (or is it?), Donald, is a carefree, adventurous soul. The brothers are both very bright and creative, but Charlie inherited all the introspection, while Donald got all the cheerfulness. They try to help each other with different projects, come up with some wild ideas for each other's work, and get caught up in a weird adventure, that borders on stalking Streep's character, to help Charlie find inspiration. Meanwhile, Streep's character, who first wrote a short piece on John Laroche (the orchid thief) for a magazine, falls in love with Laroche (Chris Cooper) and finds pseudo-happiness.

Two-thirds of the way through this film, I was thinking it rated between two and third stars, as it (over-)focused on Charlie's endless self-talk, that was comprised of self-loathing and wildly ineffective attempts to finish the screenplay. Then, Charlie and Donald take action, and follow Orlean as she heads off to Florida for an assignation with Laroche. While that leads to lots of ugliness and tragedy, it is more interesting, and it raised my rating of the film to three stars, and I'd go three-and-a-half, if I could.

With its constant flipping around chronologically, it is never absolutely clear whether any of this film-about-a-film-about-a-book is "real" or just part of Charlie's depressive, but creative, ramblings. I'm not even sure that Charlie has a twin brother, as "multiple personalities" is a potential plot device that Charlie and Donald often discuss, and Charlie + Donald = a whole personality.

I'm glad I saw this film, but I wouldn't watch it again.

Like the subject of the film I sometimes try my hand at creative writing. The deep anxieties Kaufman has over creativity are something most artists have to put up with. If you want something to just watch and identify with the utterly exhausting, often times neurotic experience of writing, this is a good comedic answer for that.

As a film, however, I wasn't all that moved by Adaptation. It's entirely too much of a fluffy, aw shucks, Hollywood clean cut movie, even at it's most brutally cynical. I mean here's a guy dying inside from social anxiety and you tend to notice his incredibly bad hair prosthetic more than genuinely feeling his pain at any point. I think it lacks reality and punch in it's direction, it's almost as gauzy as a romantic comedy at times. Cage turns in a great performance as the oblivious, happy go lucky brother, but as the screenwriter in despair he is just as inappropriate as where the movie ends up. It ends up, by the way, as one huge joke on the viewer, which you'll probably figure out about 1/3 way in anyway. Still, you could argue since that's the case, everything hokey about the movie can be excused... and that is the shaky ground I think people will have to argue the real quality of this as a film over. I'm in the camp that, yes, I get the joke, but it doesn't add up to anything special.

I'll still give it a 5, just because it's essentially a cheerful movie for even the most miserable of writers out there.

I first saw 'Adaptation' around two years ago, and I felt that I had to deliberately hold off on reviewing it. One of the major marks of a truly great film, for me anyway, is that I feel really blown away and just excited right after I finished watching, and I don't think a single other film has impressed me as much on the initial viewing as 'Adaptation'. Interestingly enough, unlike most great films, I wasn't particularly more impressed after repeated viewings, but this may just be a testament to how well done 'Adaptation is. As unusual as it is, it is written and directed with such clarity and force that it reveals almost all their is to know about it on a single viewing.

'Adaptation' is notoriously impossible to synopsize, but I'll give it a shot: 'Adaptation' is about Charlie Kaufman, an extraordinarily talented but utterly insecure screenwriter, and his attempts to write a screenplay for 'The Orchid Thief', a plotless nonfiction book about an eccentric, well, orchid thief named John Laroche. The complications come from the extreme self-referential nature of the film: The screenplay that Kaufman is writing in the film is meant to be the screenplay of the film itself. So the film is about itself, and its creation. Of course, it is still a work of fiction, albeit inspired by Kaufman's own difficulties writing the film the blending of pseudo-reality and obvious fabrication is really very amusing, as is the nonlinear narrative where we move between the events of the book 'The Orchid Thief' and Kaufman's experience writing and various bits of random background and fantasy at various moments. It's especially fun to see how the screenplay shapes itself, as at times we'll see a scene, and then learn about Kaufman's writing of it later, or we'll be able to trace how Charlie's thoughts in earlier scenes shape how later scenes play out. Sadly, I've done a terrible job of describing the bizarre structure of the film. Odds are, after reading this you still have no idea what the film is really like. However, it is actually very easy to follow while your watching.

Still, a clever setup like this isn't worth too much if you haven't got some intriguing characters and strong dialogue, both of which 'Adaptation' has in spades. Charlie Kaufman takes center stage, naturally, and he's hopelessly neurotic and filled with doubt-- a true icon for all us introvert losers. Nicolas Cage is absolutely brilliant as Charlie and his twin brother, Donald. Donald is widely different from Charlie: He's not as smart, but he's also far less self-conscious and far more socially successful. He's determined to be a screenwriter as well, though his ambitions are considerably lower than Charlie's, as he simply wants to write a formulaic, successful thriller. (Donald's screenplay, 'The Three' is one of the funniest things in the film. It's an absolutely spot-on and hilarious lampoon of the all too common big budget thriller. Most amusingly, the central conceit of the screenplay is that it centers around a serial killer, the cop on his trail and the serial killer's current victim, ending with the revelation that they are, in fact, all the same person. Charlie cannot fathom how this would work; indeed it wouldn't, and doesn't work, but no one else seems particularly interested in this fact.) Laroche and Orlean are the other central pair in the film, the former a conceited redneck intellectual who's obsessed with plants while the latter is a conventional New York intellectual, and writer for the 'New Yorker'. They have a similar relationship, in that Orlean tends to look down on Laroche, yet she is also impressed by and even jealous of how passionate and self-assured he is. Laroche is one of the most unique characters I've ever come across in any film, and Chris Kooper's Oscar was well-deserved. Kaufman is also very fair and evenhanded with his characters, as Donald and Laroche both prove to be more intelligent and observant than they first appeared, and in many ways just better people than their bohemian counterparts.

The supporting players are excellent as well. Brian Cox plays Robert McKee, a vulgar screenwriting workshop guru, whom Donald worships and Charlie loathes as a hack. (Though he eventually goes to seek him out at his most desperate moment.) Cox's role is very small, but he manages to bring out perhaps the most memorable performance in the film. (He did the exact same thing in the previous year's `The Ring'.) He is the true polar opposite of Charlie, as he is loud and forceful and accepts no nonsense whatsoever. Finally, Ron Livingstone is very funny in a small role as Charlie's agent.

And though the film has serious aspirations and is rather complex, it is still, at heart, a comedy, and a very funny one at that. It's not always laugh out loud funny, no, but it frequently is, and is always very amusing. It also has a strong human element. Again, I'd naturally identify with Charlie, but Donald and Laroche both prove to be very likable as well, despite the fact that they initially appear to be the sorta people I'd naturally dislike.

Spike Jonze's direction is as inspired as the writing. Shooting this film would doubtless be a nightmare for a merely competent director as it requires remarkable versatility and really lacks a strong central thru line. It needs to jump here and there and everywhere and still remain coherent. With Jonze at the helm it goes well beyond coherent, and it a remarkably sharp and stylish film as well.

This review is not going well. What makes 'Adaptation' so remarkable is just about impossible to describe in words, and certainly too much for me to handle. You've just gotta see it for yourself. All the Charlie Kaufman penned films that I've seen are completely worthwhile (`Being John Malkovitch', `The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' and `Confessions of A Dangerous Mind') but Adaptation is easily the best of them, and is one of the greatest films of all-time.

Grade: A

I am very, very, very confused as to how this movie is getting an average of 3.5 stars.

Now I can understand that some aspects of a cluttered film like this one can be appealing to some but I have no clue as to how somebody could derive enjoyment from the plot. The movie played like a broken record: nick cage would complain (in a voice over) about his fat balding body, his brother (also nick cage) would talk for awhile then main character nick cage would try an aspect of the story and end up masterbating.
This must have happened five or six times in the film with parts about the wirting of the book that this crap movie is based on. I don't see how the production studio could get away with the plot they used. They portrey the actual writer of the book (a very real person) as a insecure, ugly, drug attic who tries to kill the brothers (It's a shame she coulden't didn't succeed sooner).
In Conclution this movie was a piece of sh**. save yourself some money and skip this one.

Where do I start with all the things that are wrong with this film. First of all, it claims to be based on the book, which it absolutely is not. The movie writers took two characters from the book and one very broad idea and cast the rest of it aside. By the rest, I mean the book's short stories about adventure, history, culture, passion and of a colorful guy (Laroche) who stepped in and then out of the Orchid lover's circle in Florida. Instead, we end up watching "screenwriter" Nicholas Cage struggle with his enormous lack of self-confidence from which every annoying complication stems. This messy story is scattered with bits and pieces from the book as opposed to simply following any substance within the book itself. I found it hard to relate to such an unemotional, boring main character who wouldn't stop talking about himself throughout the whole movie. Its also a shame that the movie writers felt it necessary to extend the book beyond where it ended into a tabloid-esque scandal consisting of Laroche, Orlean and the two brothers mixed up with drugs, sex and violence...and finally after all that, Cage is able to smile.

I loved this movie. I was one of the many that stayed away from it when it was in the theaters, despite having enjoyed "Being John Malkovich." I had heard great reviews, but there was something about it (starring Nicolas Cage? About The Orchid Thief?) that I wasn't buying.

At any rate, I watched it on DVD and was so glad I did. This movie has to be the most creative adaptation of a literary work that I have ever seen, which should come as no surprise since Charlie Kaufman wrote it. It is very clever but never precious, thank God, and the concocted story of Charlie and his ( in reality) non-existent, hack-screenwriter brother is a fantastic complement to Susan Orlean's book. This movie is really entertaining and accessible, while also serving as a funny critique of the mainstream pap produced by Hollywood studios.

While annoying in so many of his other films (save "Leaving Las Vegas"), Nicolas Cage is very good as both Charlie and his twin. Meryl Streep is--no surprise--wonderful in her role as Susan Orlean. She is so funny in this movie. Chris Cooper is also great, as usual, and really disappears into his role as the orchid thief.

A creative, hilarious, really well-done movie. I can't recommend it enough.