Showing posts with label adaptation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adaptation. Show all posts

Tuesday, 6 January 2026

Adaptation review

 Number 538 on the top 1000 films of all time is the metafictional comedy-drama Adaptation.

Adaptation follows real-life screenwriter Charlie Kauffman (Nicholas Cage) as he struggles to adapt Susan Orleans' book 'The Orchid Thief' to the screen. Not even his identical twin brother Donald (also played by Cage) can help him. An interwoven subplot sees Susan Orleans' (Meryl Streep) process behind writing book including an attraction to John Laroche (Chris Cooper) a horticulturalist whose arrest for poaching orchids was the inspiration for Susan's book.

If there was a list for the top 1000 zaniest films of all time than Adaptation would surely be number one. The metafictional nature of the film ensures that you are in for an entertaining if somewhat convoluted ride. It is a film that centres on the topic of writing films itself. And its subject matter is Charlie Kauffman (who also wrote the screenplay.) Charlie Kauffman himself is portrayed as socially anxious and incredibly neurotic unlike his more confident twin brother Donald.  The film opens with a behind-the-scenes clip of Kauffman's famous film Being John Malkovich and only gets weirder from there as we see the intense writer's block that forms upon his struggles to adapt the Orchid Thief.

Nicholas Cage plays the Kauffman twins (although Donald is fictional.) Cage is a strange actor. At times he is capable of brilliance like when he won an Oscar for Leaving Las Vegas, but at other times he is so incredibly over-the-top. In this role, I think he managed to balance both traits well. At times, you can truly understand the pain that Kauffman is experiencing as well as his alienation from life. At other times, you can see the stranger side of Cage coming out especially in scenes where he is acting against himself. I guess his zany portrayal matched the zany nature of the film.

More enjoyable was Meryl Streep as the emotionally conflicted Susan Orleans. She develops a begrudging affection for Laroche and eventually becomes his secret lover. She brought a lot of emotional gravitas to the role. And her actions propelled us into the rather chaotic final act which was surprisingly gripping compared to the rest of the film.

*spoiler alert*

Donald Kauffman is also a screen-writer - far more successful than his twin brother. Charlie asks Donald to interview Susan while pretending to be his brother. Donald becomes suspicious of Susan and secretly follows her where he discovers she is having an affair with Laroche. Susan doesn't want to be exposed so she resolves to kill Donald. A big chase through a swamp ensues involving guns, alligators and a fatal car crash. It was an unexpected end to an unexpected movie.

Lastly, I will give a quick shoutout to Chris Cooper who won the Oscar for playing John Laroche. It was certainly a good performance as he provided some nuance to a strange character.

Strange is probably the best way I  could describe Adaptation. It was a thoroughly off-kilter and zany movie.

Tuesday, 23 June 2015

It review (1990 mini-series)



Review for It
SPOILER ALERT
We’ve come to another adaptation of Stephen King’s work.  As I’ve read ‘It’ and I've heard that the adaptation is supposed to be great, I thought I would it a go.

‘It’ is set in mostly Derry, Maine and in two different timelines, one in 1957 and the other in 1984.  The 1957 timeline follows the protagonists’ narrative as children.  There are seven protagonists: Bill Denborough (Richard Thomas,) the stuttering leader of the group, the fat but good-hearted Ben Hanscom (John Ritter,) the asthmatic Eddie Kasbarak (Dennis Christopher), the wisecracking smartarse Richie Tozier (Harry Anderson,) the sceptical and rational Stan Uris (Richard Masur), the only girl in the group Beverly Marsh (Annette O'Toole) and the only black member of the group Mike Hanlon (Tim Reid).  

These seven children do battle with the child-eating, inter-dimensional monster known as Pennywise the Clown or It (Tim Curry).  When they fail to kill Pennywise in 1957, they return in 1984 to do battle once again.  One prominent subplot also sees them facing off any times with the neighbourhood bully Henry Bowers.  Henry serves as a human and therefore more relatable, but no less psychotic antagonist.

‘It’ was released as a two-part TV movie, each part being 90 mins long.  Seeing as the book is over 1000 pages long, I would argue that this is a reasonable length for a film, which they achieved by cutting out some unnecessary secondary characters and some lengthy character development.  I’m glad they did this, as I thought the book had far too much backstory for its characters and I got very bored reading through parts of it.  The film also worked well as a horror.  It did well in, rather than showing the murders themselves, it showed the effects on those left behind.  Pennywise has the powers to shapeshift into a character’s biggest fear or make them see what they fear most.     The film depicted these different images very well, which all added to the scariness of it.  I also quite liked the child cast, although it was weird seeing Seth Green, who played the young Richie Tozier, as a sixteen year old.

However, the film missed out a couple of important scenes that featured in the book.  The first focuses on Beverly in the 1984 timeline.  In this timeline, she is married to the abusive and possessive Tom Hagen.  When she tells Tom, she wants to return to Maine, they get into a bloody and physical fight with Beverly being the victor.  In the film, this is mostly omitted, which I didn’t like, as in the book we see Beverly’s inner strength and power as a character, which isn’t conveyed in the same way within the film.  

The second scene focuses on Mike Hanlon’s past in 1957.  Within this scene, Mike’s father tells him how he and some of his friends created a club that was originally just for black people, but soon expanded to encompass all races, but the club was burnt down by white supremacists.  I felt that this really highlighted the racial prejudice that black people experienced at the time and by omitting this scene, I felt that the film glossed over this issue.  

Tim Curry was also good as Pennywise the Clown. Sure, you could argue he was a little over-the-top, but it worked. There's a reason why Pennywise is considered one of the scariest film villains ever.

And the less said about Bill Denborough's ponytail, the better. 


Overall, this was an enjoyable film.  It was certainly very creepy and horrific and for the most part, it was a faithful adaption of the book it was based on.  However, I felt that the filmmakers could have been a little wiser in the scenes that they omitted. That notwithstanding this film brought us one of the scariest villains of the 1990's.