Everybody's a critic - 'Adaptation'

Two and a half stars

Remember those "Seinfeld" episodes where the character Jerry, played by the "real" Jerry Seinfeld, comes up with ideas for a sitcom based on his life with George, a fictional character? Keep that in mind for "Adaptation," a film written by the real Charles Kaufman about his struggles writing a real adaptation of a real book ... but the movie's not a real story. Get it? You might,or you might not. In it, a character says "adaptation is a profound process." It seems that Kaufman (the real one) got caught up in the "profound" loop-the-loops he created between his own life and the wacky screenplay. Nice acting moments from Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper don't redeem Nicholas Cage's caricatured performance or the self-indulgent story. However, the movie is fun to talk about afterward. So grab your artsy wife (or if you're not me, your most artsy friend), see it, and have a nice, artsy post-movie chat.

- Bob Clubbs, high school drama/speech teacher

Three stars

Just as I was wondering if Missourian readers were bored with Bob's and my like-minded reviews, our tickets for "Adaptation" arrived. I loved Charlie Kaufman's previous screenplay, "Being John Malkovich," but Bob didn't.

This movie is based on Kaufman's real-life difficulty with adapting the novel "The Orchid Thief" for the screen, which struck me as clever and unique. As the film opened with Charlie's (Nicholas Cage) intense narrative, I was hopeful. However, as the lights came back up and Bob declared, "I didn't like it," I had to reply, deflated, "Neither did I." The style shift when Charlie's brother, David (a fictional character who shares the screenwriting credit, also played by Cage), takes over is humorous; the performances are good. I guess I didn't like it because I sense pretentiousness here rather than the intellectual fun of "Malkovich." We're not in on the joke this time, and that's too bad.

- Brooke Hildebrand Clubbs, adjunct professor

Two stars

"Adaptation" was extremely hard for me to get into. For almost the entire first half, I was bored and waiting for it to move on. Granted, there were a few funny moments scattered throughout, but the repetition of the film well outdid the laughter. However, the second part finally kicked in and became at least slightly interesting. Yet, I still felt as though this movie was not going anywhere. How this became nominated for Best Picture I have no idea.

Oh wait, I forgot that the Academy loves these slow movies that are supposed to "make you think." As a whole, this movie was not too terribly bad, and as I said the second half was far better than the first. But I still don't think this movie is worth paying outrageous prices to see. Wait until the rental comes out so you can save a bit of money.

- Wes Smith, high school student