Adaptation

[cactusmaac]

Saw this yesterday and it was one of those rare movies that keeps you fully engaged throughout. Didn't once look at my watch during the 1hr 50m running length, which is pretty rare for me.

It features Nicolas Cage's best performance of his career to date and is a complete change from a lot of the dreck he was doing previously (Family Man, Gone In 60 Seconds etc.)

Donald Kaufmann's probably my favourite character in a comedy since Eddie Murphy's turn as Jiff Ramsey. Coming a very close second performance-wise is Chris Cooper's portrayal of John LaRouche.

Wonderful movie, highest recommendation, go get it now if you haven't seen it yet.

[Hi-Fi]

It's a great movie. Cage is really outstanding in it. And so are Chris Cooper and Meryl Streep. Higly recomended.

[Forefinger]

It's so wonderfully weird. Also, watch Being John Malkovitch (?) which is a part of this movie.

[Gaz]

It's very good, but a little empty emotionally (except for the "you are what you love" part), and it rambles slightly in the second half. Kaufman didn't get that down until Eternal Sunshine.

[Sheldon]

I loved how the movie shifted in tone once Charlie let Donald "help" him with the script.

[GremlinClr]

Such a great movie! Easily on my top 10 list.

[Davideaux]

It is a great movie. I didn't attribute the shift in tone to Donald's help but it does make a lot of sense.

I agree that Nick Cage has never been better than he is in this movie. He's fairly versatile apparently. I really like Meryl Streep's performance too. I wasn't expecting much from her character besides what she was presenting to the audience. However, towards the end she let loose and it was surprising but it made sense.

[cactusmaac]

It's very good, but a little empty emotionally (except for the "you are what you love" part), and it rambles slightly in the second half. Kaufman didn't get that down until Eternal Sunshine.

Really?

I thought it was all about emotion what with Charlie struggling to straighten his lfe out in the first half, Susan falling in love, the "you are what you love" part and the end with the talk to Amelia.

Brian Cox was great.

[Gaz]

Really?

I thought it was all about emotion what with Charlie struggling to straighten his lfe out in the first half, Susan falling in love, the "you are what you love" part and the end with the talk to Amelia.

Brian Cox was great.
The first half feels more like him observing people experiencing emotion and life, which is kinda the point I guess, but him being the lead, means we get that same removed feeling, or at least, I did.

And yes, Cox is ALWAYS great. :) *hums "Scotland the Brave"*

[StoneGold]

The whole thing was metatextual. It was supposed to be all cold in the beginning, because that was Charlie feeling all distant and artistic and crap, and then at the end, after his "brother" started helping out, it turned into standard studio crap, with chase scenes and falling in love and stuff. But you have to know some outside stuff to get that, like Charlie's brother was a fictional character, to get the joke. A bit inside and highbrow, really, but if you get it, it works.

[Gaz]

The whole thing was metatextual. It was supposed to be all cold in the beginning, because that was Charlie feeling all distant and artistic and crap, and then at the end, after his "brother" started helping out, it turned into standard studio crap, with chase scenes and falling in love and stuff. But you have to know some outside stuff to get that, like Charlie's brother was a fictional character, to get the joke. A bit inside and highbrow, really, but if you get it, it works.
I got most of it, the problem is, while that's an interesting premise, if a character seems too distant to identify with, then the whole thing will have trouble as the audience loses their point of connection. This didn't quite have that problem, but it came close at times. Besides, he's always had trouble ending movies. Human Nature and Being John Malkovich end less interestingly than they start. It's not so much "journey over destination" as "journey, what destination?", which can work, but not when you run towards the horizon to start. Aw, crap, it's getting to me now...

[StoneGold]

I got most of it, the problem is, while that's an interesting premise, if a character seems too distant to identify with, then the whole thing will have trouble as the audience loses their point of connection. This didn't quite have that problem, but it came close at times. Besides, he's always had trouble ending movies. Human Nature and Being John Malkovich end less interestingly than they start. It's not so much "journey over destination" as "journey, what destination?", which can work, but not when you run towards the horizon to start. Aw, crap, it's getting to me now...
Yeah, but none of these movies were really being made for a mass audience. They're "art." I mean, that's the whole premise behind adaptation. Everything "goes to crap" when the characters and situations suddenly become more identifiable. Irony or something.

[Brock]

Has anyone else read the original draft with the "swamp-ape" ending? it plays out almost the same, but sets up a running gag about narrative contrivance which pays off in the final chase scene.

Its much more broadly comedic than the normal ending and I partly wish that we could have seen it in the final version.

[Gaz]

Yeah, but none of these movies were really being made for a mass audience. They're "art." I mean, that's the whole premise behind adaptation. Everything "goes to crap" when the characters and situations suddenly become more identifiable. Irony or something.
Art should provoke a response, not keep you from doing so.