| (07.26) | Lady in the Water  |
| (05.21) | Da Vinci Code, The  |
| (05.06) | United 93  |
| (02.05) | King Kong  |
| (01.29) | Syriana |
| (01.24) | Walk the Line |
| (01.05) | Chronicles of Narnia, The: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe  |
| (01.02) | Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire |
| (12.30) | Jarhead |
| (12.27) | Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit |
| (12.05) | randy: Polar Express, The |
| (12.02) | Geoff: Polar Express, The |
| (07.27) | Jen: Lady in the Water |
| (07.27) | Justin: Lady in the Water |
| (07.12) | Sarah: Da Vinci Code, The |
| (05.25) | Chris: Da Vinci Code, The |
| (05.25) | Acceler8: Da Vinci Code, The |
| (05.21) | Mr Plow: Da Vinci Code, The |
| (05.11) | Sarah: United 93 |
| (05.11) | Bread: United 93 |
I'm really torn on this one. I'll start off with the good stuff (and almost all Adaptation is good stuff):
This may very well be one of the best screenplays ever. Seriously. It's brilliant. I'll try to explain what's going on briefly (you'd really have to see the film to get it though). Okay, the film stars Nicholas Cage as Charlie Kauffman, a screenwriter who's done very well for himself at his profession, but not so well in his personal life. Charlie Kauffman, however, is actually a real person: he's the screenwriter of Adaptation (sounds cool already, doesn't it?). The movie follows Cage/Kauffman as he attempts to write a screenplay based on Susean Orlean's book, "The Orchid Thief", which is based on an article she wrote for The New Yorker magazine, and which is a non-fiction account of the life of a quirky guy named John Laroche, who makes a living stealing exotic and endangered orchids and breeding them in his greenhouse (Orlean and Laroche are also real people, though they're played by Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper in the movie, and "The Orchid Thief" is a real book). So let me recap: Adaptation, written by Charlie Kauffman, is basically about Charlie Kaufmann trying to write a screenplay based on a book based on a magizne-article about a weird guy and his flowers.
Of course, that's the "simplified" version. Like I said, this may be one of the best screenplays ever written, and that's because all of the "other stuff" going on here. For instance, there's so much great stuff in here about screenwriters (specifically the real Kauffman), and knowing that Kauffman is actually the screenwriter of Adaptaion adds a very thick layer of self-referentialism that's both very meaningful and often very funny. Also, if you consider the double-meaning of the word "adaptation", there's lots more meaning to be taken from the film. Adaptation is not only the process of adapting (for example) a book for the screen, but also of adapting to the changes of one's life and surroundings.
There's also some truly great acting going on here. This is the best performance I've ever seen by Cage. Not only does he give a really complex turn as Charlie Kauffman, but he also plays Kauffman's (fictional) twin brother, Donald, and he does a great job of really differentiating the two people. Meryl Streep is great as Susan Orlean, the character who goes through the most profound changes in the film, and Chris Cooper's John Laroce is perhaps the most interesting character in the whole film (he's weird and bizarre, but also one of the smartest people in the film, I think).
Okay, so now the bad: I'm not really going to give anything away here, but if you're sensitive about this kind of stuff (I know I am), maybe you should skip the rest of this until you've seen the movie. Basically I didn't care for the ending at all. For a movie that so carefully and brilliantly avoids any sort of cliche whatsoever throughout nearly it's entirety, it seemed that the ending took the easy way out. Unfortunately for me, I had read a something about this film a while back that made me anticipate some kind of huge, rewarding payoff near the end, but I didn't feel that it happened, and instead the ending seemed like quite a let-down.
What's interesting, though, is that there seemed to be hints throughout the film that indicated the ending was going to play out the way it did. I really want to watch this movie again, knowing how it's going to end, and without the misplaced expectations that I had going into it the first time. The first part of the movie is so strong that I'm sure it'll be rewarding to see it again, and the ending might even make more sense the second time around.
I agree with everything said,however i would have put it in stronger terms.for me the movie fell of a cliff.I'm writing this now after watching the film twice back to back and i still cant figure out where that ending came from,it was as if they attached an ending from a different movie charlie wrote the first 3 quarters and "donald" came in for the end.And the alligator my god the alligator,that was something straight out of the hollywood pulp mill.However i did notice on my second view that the abrupt change came directly after Charlies conversation with the brian cox character whose parting advice was "wow them in the end and you'll have a hit" So perhaps the end was an intentional part of the beta structure,itself an examination of the hollywood process and the pressures to wow them in the end? Either way the first three quarters was fricking brilliant.
Hey Billy! (whoever you are... ?)
After having the chance to think a bunch about Adaptation, and read a bunch about it on the 'net, I'm totally convinced that the ending *is* "Donald's" ending... kind've indicating that Charlie really just had to give up and give in to standard Hollywood tactics, as per Donald's ideas. And yes, the "switch" occurs pretty much right after the screenwriting conference.
Another way of looking at Adaptation (well, it's kinda the same thing) is that the ending of Adaptation never really happened... it's like everything up to and including the screenwriting conference is Charlie's "real life" struggle to come up with the ultimate screenplay for The Orchid Theif, and the last act of the film is more-or-less an imagination of Charlie's life spun through Donald-esque cliches.
Other things: Charlie says near the beginning he doesn't want his screenplay to devolve into "sex, drugs, violence, people learning life-lessons, etc." Of course, this is *exactly* what happens at the end.
Finally: remember Brian Cox (the screenwriting semenar guy) warns everyone to *never* use a deus-ex machina? Well, of course, that's exactly what the alligator at the end is.
You know, I really wanna see this movie again.. I'm almost certain I'd like it better a second time.
I feel that the reviewer has missed the point of the ending. It is inherent in the concept of the film - adaptation. How individuals change and adapt to their surroundings, a sort of evolution. And also, it is told to us by Donald when he says you are not who loves you, but who you love. Charlie realizes he loves his brother and it his way of becoming that he changes the end to be, conceptually, more Donald-esque. He has adapted the moment Donald arrives in New York. Realize, that when Donald arrives in NYC, that is when the pace and direction change. Orlean becomes a drug addict. The Kauffmans become a sort of Hardy Boys detective team. Extreme plot changes happen, so similar to Donald's style in The3. The ending wasn't a disappointment, it was genius. It was a realization of all of the "blooming" symbolism that occurs throughout. Bravo to the Kauffman "brothers".
I just had to say something, because Adaptation is quite wildly my favorite movie. Obviously there are a lot of things happening on many different levels in the end and the whole movie, not all of which can be pinned down. I think Charlie Kauffman was making a tribute to his "dead" brother with the ending. I think he also struggled with attempting to produce something original, and because of his creative mindset he could barely commit to any one direction concerning the film, and the ending was his way of finally coming to terms with the formulas of Hollywood within his own framework, as obviously, he still wrote the rest of the film as he pleased, and continued to use voice over narration. It was a multi faceted character arc. I don't think the ending really happened, and I do think it was genius. I'd love to know what Charlie Kauffman was actually intending. In the meantime I'll just watch the movie again, and quietly worship it's engineer.
For the love of God, keep wirntig these articles.
For the love of God, keep wirntig these articles.
For the love of God, keep wirntig these articles.
1 of 1 poplee found the following review helpful: Too small, May 5, 2011By – Amazon Verified Purchase() This review is from: If you have a somewhat wide foot and high arch, these shoes are not for you. They were too small and I couldn’t get the strap to even buckle. I love the shoe, just doesn’t fit my feet. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews Was this review helpful to you? |
1 of 1 poplee found the following review helpful: Too small, May 5, 2011By – Amazon Verified Purchase() This review is from: If you have a somewhat wide foot and high arch, these shoes are not for you. They were too small and I couldn’t get the strap to even buckle. I love the shoe, just doesn’t fit my feet. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews Was this review helpful to you? |