
Adaptation
For fuck's sake.
*Spoilers ahead*
I saw Adaptation. I mean after Eternal Sunshine I had to see it.
How can you ruin a seemingly interesting movie? Well, by doing what they did in Adaptation.
I can't even begin to describe how sub-mediocre this shit was. You don't break the hollywood stereotype movie by TALKING about breaking the hollywood stereotype movie in the movie, and then ending it as any hollywood stereotype movie would end. With gun chases, accidents, swamps, and alligators eating humans.
I mean ... heck ... total crap ... it only took two dead bodies (including the guy's twin brother) for the guy to finally feel "happy" at the end of the movie and finish his script. I mean, like, how bout this for a conversation a short while after your twin bro is brutally dead (first accidentally shot and then rocketed out through the windsheild cuz you crashed your car while trying to take him to a hospital)
- so how you gettin' on?
-I'm OK ..... I miss him you know
-*nod* .... how's the script coming?
- it's good i'm almost finished ...
Oh and a genius scriptwriter he was ... at the end he just wrote the EXACT reality, WORD for WORD ... bloody hell ...
.
I saw the movie as soon as it came out. It was such a good movie that I fell asleep in the middle of it!!
by Tulipan at April 16, 2004 01:55 AM
Well, you obviously took all the symbolism throughout the whole movie so literally that you missed the whole point!!
It was ironic how it ended, it mocked the normal everyday hollywood movies.
By the way, as you know all the characters in this movie were real life people EXCEPT ONE PERSON, and that is Charlie Kaufman's twin brother, Donald Kaufman. Kaufman doesn't have a twin in real life. Doesn't that ring a bell?!?!
It was simply a beautiful movie, with a script with many layers.
*Spoilers ahead*
At the end he just wrote the EXACT reality? ok let me explain!! Remember when he met Robert Mckee? He told him "I'll tell you a secret. The last act makes the film. Wow them in the end, and you've got a hit. You can have flaws, problems, but wow them in the end, and you've got a hit. Find an ending, but don't cheat, and don't you dare bring in a deus ex machina. Your characters must change, and the change must come from them. Do that, and you'll be fine."
And that is what he exactly did. so whatever you saw from the point where they start chasing Susan is him "WOWing" us at the end of his movie. Because the Book "The Orchid Thief" ends where Susan leaves John at the lake.
Remember when he was talking to that lady in the resturant at the beginning of the movie? He said "I don't want to cram in sex or guns or car chases or characters learning profound life lessons or growing or coming to like each other or overcome obstacles to succeed in the end."
isn't that ironic that all the elements he mentioned above happned at the end? there was sex, guns, car chases, character learning profound life lessons (you are what you love not what loves you), they grow to like each other at the end, he overcame all his obstabcles and finished the script and suceeded at the end.
so at the end he himself fell into the whole hollywood streotype trap!! but then again we are not watching the movie he is trying to write the script for, we are watching a movie about him writting a script. that is what makes it so brilliant!!!
by stupid people at April 16, 2004 04:45 AM
1- The ONLY interesting thing about this movie, is Kaufman writing about Kaufman writing about Kaufman, and that is it. It takes only a few minutes of brain activity to figure that out, and say: well that's cool.
2- I think you're contradicting yourself. From your first main paragraph the point I get is that you're trying to say it was NOT reality, and that the stuff at the end is just what he wrote in the script to "wow" us "Because the Book "The Orchid Thief" ends where Susan leaves John at the lake."
Then in your next paragraph you say "isn't that ironic that all the elements he mentioned above happned at the end?" which I gather you mean that the stuff actually really happened (otherwise it wouldn't be called "irony" if it's just the fictional "script" that the fictional Kaufman writes).
"we are not watching the movie he is trying to write the script for, we are watching a movie about him writting a script". So again, you're saying this is not the movie that he wrote, it's just the sequence of events showing how he tried to (And finished) writing the script for the Orchid book. Again, this contradicts your earlier point that you claim the ending is "fictional" and is what he "wrote" in the script to wow us, cuz if that is the case then this IS the MOVIE he wrote the script for, and not just a movie about him writing the script.
3-Here's the situation: In REAL life (REAL REAL life, no movies) we have this real scriptwrier Kaufman, who'se written the script for the movie Adaptaion., and that's the movie we saw. Now, in the script, he's included himself as a character (played by Nic Cage) and this character (Kaufman) is trying to write a script for an Orchid movie , now Nic Cage, who is the finctional Kaufman, decides to include HIMSELF (or Kaufman), again, in the script he's writing. So that's where the Kaufman writing about Kaufman writing about Kaufman comes along. Now at the end, the second Kauffman (Nic Cage) finishes the script. So the movie that we see (adaptation) can either be the movie that supposedly Nic Cage (second Kaufman) wrote the script for (in which case it wouldn't necessarily be the *real* sequence of events and he (nic cage) could have totaly made up the last part) OR it could be the movie that the REAL Kaufman wrote, in which case it would just be the sequence of events showing how nic cage is trying to write a script and finishes at the end.
and that's the only interesting thing about the movie. But regardless of which choice it is (or which choice you choose to choose!) the fact that at the end it became the typical hollywood ending, means that it's somehow trying to either 1)defend hollywood type movies 2) try and say that crazy things DO happpen in real life and real life IS also like hollywood movies .... either of which is pure crap, considering how the movie was trying to break the stereotype in the first place
It's a movie that started with the right idea, and could have been absolutely mind boggling, but it overwhelmed itself and totally lost it at the end, making it a mediocre effort at best.
by legofish at April 16, 2004 01:12 PM
wow! and u think i'm in a bad mood :-)
what happened here while i was dealing with my own problems??? revolution!
i hate to say this, but i liked that movie... so much that i bought the 'orchid thief' book and liked it even better than the movie...
anyway... cheer up... can't be that bad... ok... maybe...
by shadi at April 16, 2004 07:57 PM
i don't watch movies, but i tell u this, i liked the word sub-mediocre, it's cool cuz it reminds me of trunk rattling sub-bass, but here's the deal, i hate any extra typing, so i wanted to copy the word sub-mediocre but had one heck of a time trying to select it, i finally gave up cuz i couldn't, try it, try selecting just that one word, ur page is suspect man, it's suspect i tell ya.
by deev at April 17, 2004 12:51 AM
i know man ... i was hoping no one would ever try to select anything so this fuck up would not surface ... but alas, the day has finally come.
I don't know what's up with it, I've been thinking about it since day one but it seems one can only select properly til the end of the left column, and no more ... hmm ... oh well
by legofish at April 17, 2004 01:58 AM
This comment was supposed to be posted on the sketchpad blog after Shadi's comment. But for whatever reason I was not able to post it there. Anyway, here it goes:
Tulipan: I have the same question. What's going on?
Legofish: I am tired of reading your b.s and I don't wanna waste my time reading your comments anymore!! I am just writing for the sake of writing and I don't need anybody's comments. Remember? I am not the nice guy that I seemingly portray.