MovieChat Forums > Adaptation. (2003) Discussion > Worth watching for Chris Cooper, and not...

Worth watching for Chris Cooper, and not much else

posted 10 years ago by Edward_de_Vere
7 replies | jump to latest

I found this movie to be mostly a bunch of self-indulgent tripe (as usual) by Charlie Kaufman, almost as irritating as Shamalyan's Lady in the Water. The whole "metamovie" gimmick is overplayed and pretends to be much deeper than it really is. And for all the praise that Nicholas Cage gets for his performance, as usual he tries too hard and you can see him acting (or trying to act), as in his overhyped performance in Leaving Las Vegas. We get Cage as "Charlie Kaufman" channeling a parody of Woody Allen.

On the other hand, I still think that the movie is worth watching for Chris Cooper's performance. He switches from comical to pathetic to menacing so naturally that he was a joy to watch as Laroche. It's not surprising that his performance received so many accolades - he's what kept it from being a complete turkey. Brian Cox's brief appearance was entertaining too.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GeekCritique 9 years ago

I Love this movie, its one of my favorites. I think that the entire complexity and story are all insane, and it is INCREDIBLY well written. Its one of the best written films EVER! I also think that it has quite a bit of re-watch value.
You talk'n to me?

[–] GeekCritique 9 years ago

[–] LionInWinter 9 years ago

Kaufman isn't self indulgent, in fact he literally portrays himself as a sheltered loser who harshly criticizes hacks even though he's completely unable to write anything himself, masturbates to book covers and can't hold a conversation with a girl. That's pretty much the exact opposite of self indulgence.

And no it doesn't pretend to be deep, in fact the whole point of the movie is about how this movie, the adaptation of The Orchid Thief, is not deep at all even though it should have been. Jesus Christ did you even watch the movie?

Everyone is entitled to their own dumb opinions but don't falsely accuse a critically acclaimed writer of these things in the process. I bet you're one of those people who calls movies "pretentious" when they require using your brain to understand them.

[–] Soodinum 9 years ago

I'm not agreeing with the guy who said self indulgent, but you don't understand the term. Just because he portrays himself with weaknesses and foibles doesn't mean a lack of self indulgence.

[–] jawn030 8 years ago

Exactly. An example of a truly self-indulgent film having to do with artists that are part of the industry would be Birdman (despite the amazing technical aspects of that film). Here, Kaufman's work is operating at several different levels thematically, which is nearly impossible to pull off in such a taut fashion.

[–] alexandercappelli 8 years ago

I liked the movie a lot more than you but I agree that Chris Cooper delivers the better performance.