Adaptation (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #55

Nicolas Cage was nominated for an Oscar as Best Actor in the 2003 Academy Awards. He didn't win. That was a miscarriage of justice. "The Pianist" was a good film, but there's no way that Adrien Brody was a better actor.

Meryl Streep was nominated as Best Supporting Actress, but lost to Catherine Zeta-Jones in "Chicago". That's a close call, but I still think that Meryl was slightly better.

Chris Cooper won the award as Best Supporting Actor. So there's still some justice left in the world. His performance in the film is incredible.

It's almost 20 years since "Adaptation" was in the cinemas. How many of my readers know it? I consider it to be a cinematic masterpiece that's been unjustly forgotten. It's rarely been shown on television, and even in our Netflix days television is the best way to keep films alive. Random films are thrown at viewers who just tune in to watch whatever's on.

I don't often watch television. Almost never. Usually it's only when I'm a guest in someone else's home and they have the television running in the background. Today was the first time I consciously watched television in my own home for more than five years. I watched Prince Phillip's funeral. Before it started there were advertisements for films that would be shown in the evening: "Thor: Ragnarok" and "300". They're both good films, in their own way. I'd say that they're better television films. What I mean by that is that there's a lot of action, so if you walk into the room while your wife or kids are watching you'll be attracted and sit down to watch the rest.

"Adaptation" isn't a good television film. Anyone who walks in and sees it will say "Huh? What's this?" and walk out again. It's a film you have to give yourself to. You have to sit down and devote yourself to the plot. It's a film for thinkers. You have to actively participate in the film and think about everything that happens. I'm sure that television planners realise this, which is why it's not shown.

In my opinion, this is the most intelligent film ever made. I wouldn't say it's the best film, just the most intelligent, as far as the plot is concerned. It's been called a meta-film, but it's really a meta-meta-film. It's a film about a film about a film about a book about true events. "Adaptation", the film, shifts constantly between the different levels, so that at the end you don't know what's real and what isn't.

In 1998 the journalist Susan Orlean wrote a book about John Laroche, a man who was arrested for stealing rare orchids. The book was a surprise bestseller, so it was decided to make it into a film. When the screenplay was finally written it was shown to Susan Orlean for approval, and her reaction was "Absolutely not! Are you kidding? This is going to ruin my career!" The film portrayed her as a drug addict who posed for pornography sites. There was no truth to this, but it's well known that films often take liberties with the truth. She eventually changed her mind and allowed the film to be made. That surprises me. Most respectable authors would have refused to be slandered in this way. Maybe she treated it as a joke.

Charlie Kaufman was hired to write the screenplay for the book. He was an unusual choice for such a task. In my opinion, he was the wrong choice. He suffered from writer's block, so eventually he made the unusual decision to write a film about himself suffering from writer's block while writing the screenplay. He's hampered in his writing by his fictitious twin brother Donald, who also wants to be a screenwriter. Charlie considers Donald an idiot, but he has to stand by and see that Donald is considered a genius. It's significant that Charlie only succeeds in finishing his screenplay when Donald is killed.

This is a film that I can wholeheartedly recommend to everyone who likes to watch films that he can think about.

The film is universally available on DVD, but it's only been released on Blu-ray in America. The Blu-ray disc is locked to region A.

Success Rate:  - 0.3

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Max (4½ Stars)

This is the 15th film starring Leelee Sobieski, made in 2002 when she was 18. Yes, I know I'm jumping backwards and forwards, not watching her films in order. It's the only way I'll get through them all this year. She only plays a relatively small role in this film, but it's my intention to work my way through her entire filmography.

The Max named in the film's title is Max Rothman, a wealthy Jew who lives in Munich. In 1914 he volunteered to fight in the German army, where he served until 1917. In the Battle of Ypres he lost his right arm and was discharged. Before the war he was a talented artist, but he's now unable to paint with his left arm, so he makes a living buying and selling art. Unlike the people around him he lives a life of luxury. He has a beautiful wife, but he also has a mistress, Liselore von Peltz, played by Leelee Sobieski.

In 1918 Max meets a struggling young artist called Adolf Hitler who has just returned from the war. Max recognises Hitler's talent and sells some of his paintings for low prices, telling him he can make more money if he puts more emotion into his art. At the same time Hitler is engaging in politics, making speeches in beer halls. Max is fascinated by Hitler, because they hold many views in common, such as hating the Treaty of Versailles. However, Max tells Hitler that he should concentrate on his career as an artist, because there is no future in politics.

What would have happened if Hitler had taken Max's advice? Did he have enough talent to become a great artist who would have been revered today? I don't know. People usually criticise him and say he was talentless, but I suspect they're biased against him because of the other things he did in his life.

There's also the question as to how Hitler would have continued in his personal development if he had maintained his relationship with Max. The film shows him initially being uncertain about anti-Semitism. He's pushed into it by fellow soldiers who see the Jews as being responsible for Communism. Max, of course, is far from being a Communist. If a deeper friendship had developed Hitler might have accepted that it's possible to be both Jewish and German.

As I mentioned in my review of "Never Been Kissed", Leelee Sobieski retired from acting because she said that 90% of films involve sexual stuff with other people. Of her nine films I've watched this year none of them have any sexual stuff, and this is the first film in which she kisses a man. I'm keeping count.

Adaptation (5 Stars)

This year the film "Legend" was shown in which one actor, Tom Hardy, played two characters, the Kray twins. It might seem like a novel gimmick to have an actor play both twins, but it's something that has been done repeatedly in the history of cinema. In 1929 William Bakewell played Louis XIV and his unnamed twin brother in "The Iron Mask". In 1946 Douglas Fairbanks played the twins Mario and Lucien Franchi in "The Corsican Brothers". Of course, in the early days of cinema technology was limited. It was difficult to put the same actor in the same picture twice without cutting film frames in half, or maybe using a stand-in in double shoots with his face hidden.

In 2002 Nicolas Cage was cast to play both of the Kaufman twins, Charlie and Donald, in "Adaptation". No other film comes as close to highlighting Nicolas Cage's brilliance as an actor. Charlie Kaufman is insecure, full of self-loathing. Donald Kaufman is self-confident, happily sailing through life, naively oblivious when people speak badly of him behind his back. (On a side note, the Economist once praised German Chancellor Helmut Kohl for dealing with problems by not noticing them until they were gone). The relationship between the twins is even more poignant. Donald, on the left in the picture above, loves and idolises his brother. Charlie's feelings are more complex: he has affection for Donald, but he considers him to be stupid and an embarrassment. Nevertheless, Charlie would like to be more like Donald.

My regular readers will realise that it's no coincidence that I've shown a screenshot where the two characters are reading books. Charlie is reading "The Orchid Thief" by Susan Orlean, the book which he is attempting to adapt into a screenplay. Donald is reading "Story" by Robert McKee, a book of instructions on how to be a successful screenwriter. The authors of both books appear in the film, played by Meryl Streep and Brian Cox respectively.

In real life Charlie Kaufman doesn't have a brother. In the context of the film it's obvious to interpret this as a multiple personality disorder. Donald is writing a screenplay in which a police detective and a serial killer are the same person, which the detective doesn't realise when he's pursuing the killer, or even when the killer holds the detective prisoner. We can interpret the film as Charlie being held prisoner by his other self, unable to escape until he kills him.

Robert McKee

However, there's another way to interpret Donald Kaufman. Donald represents Robert McKee, while Charlie represents the real Charlie Kaufman. They are two screenwriters, but on opposite poles of creativity. Robert McKee has all the answers. "Follow my 10 rules of screenwriting and you'll be rich". Charlie Kaufman struggles to do something original, knowing the rules but deliberately breaking them. Supposedly Charlie dislikes Robert (or at least what Robert stands for) in real life. "Adaptation" is Charlie's way of dealing with him. If Robert says don't use voice-over, he'll use it throughout the movie. If Robert says don't use a deus ex machina, he'll throw in an alligator in the final scene.

"Adaptation" is as much an adaptation of "Story" as it is of "The Orchid Thief". The joint adaptations go in different directions. "The Orchid Thief" is a sprawling non-narrative which has been developed into a coherent plot. The story emerged from the primeval ooze and developed into an upright piece of fiction. "Story" is a well-organised book, but it's reduced into chaos, being smashed to pieces by the end of the film. It's evolution versus entropy.

"Adaptation" is probably the most brilliant screenplay ever written. Its depth and nuances make it an ideal topic for a film studies PhD thesis. Probably someone has already written a thesis about it. If I find a thesis on this film I'll ask the author for permission to publish it in full on my blog, because I know that nothing I write myself could ever say enough about the film.

Love & Mercy (5 Stars)

This is a film about the musician Brian Wilson, told in parallel in two phases, his life in the 1960's and his life in the 1980's. The dates are never explicitly stated, but it seems like the main periods dealt with by the film are 1964 to 1966 and 1986 to 1988. Brian Wilson is played by two different actors, Paul Dano as Brian Wison in his early twenties and John Cusack as Brian Wilson in his late forties. Before I saw the film I thought that using different actors would detract from the realism, but it works very well. People's appearances do change over a period of time. I know that from my own experience. In my early childhood I had white hair, in my late teens my hair was yellowy blond, in my thirties my hair was dark blond, almost brown, and now I shave my head to hide the size of my bald patch.

The film opens with the Beach Boys already at the height of their fame. It was a family group: Brian Wilson, his brothers Dennis and Carl, a cousin and a childhood friend. From the beginning Brian was the driving force. He wrote the songs and the Beach Boys performed them. On stage Carl Wilson was the more dominant personality. This was just as well, because Brian said that live performances were too stressing for him, and he decided to stay at home while the group was touring. His strength lay in creating new songs in the studio, not in performing them on stage.

Brian's time away from the band allowed him to record "Pet Sounds" with session musicians. This was released as a Beach Boys album, but it was effectively Brian Wilson's first solo album, since the other band members added almost nothing to it, musically or vocally. Surprisingly, it was their least successful album. I say "surprisingly", because I'm used to it being regarded as their best album. I don't understand why it took so long to become popular. Maybe it's because the American public associated the Beach Boys with surfing music, and "Pet Sounds" was too different for them to accept straight away.

Behind closed doors not everything was so positive. Brian Wilson heard voices in his head, which was made even worse when he experimented with LSD and other drugs. His father, who had produced the band's first few albums, hated Brian's new music and said so in unpleasant ways.

In the 1980's we see Brian Wilson under the control of Dr. Eugene Landy, a domineering psychiatrist who lived with Brian and had taken complete control of his life. Dr. Landy's treatment had made Brian active again after a period of three years spent in bed, but as we see, he wasn't happy. People who know about Brian Wilson probably know what happened next, but I shan't say any more to leave it as a surprise for those who still haven't seen the film.

This is an incredible film, whether or not you consider yourself a Beach Boys fan. The atmosphere of the past decades is perfectly recreated, the happy 60's and the dismal 80's. It feels like we're living in the past. Both actors who play Brian Wilson give first class performances, but in my opinion it's Paul Dano who stands out. The film has been tipped as a contender for the Best Film at next year's Academy Awards, and I can see why.

The real life Brian Wilson, who is now 73, has praised the film for its accuracy, especially in the portrayal of his mental illness in the 1960's. Compare this with other biopics like "Foxcatcher", which Mark Schultz criticised for its inaccuracy. For some of the scenes the original locations were used, such as the recording studios which the Beach Boys actually used. Paul Giamatti bases his portrayal of Dr. Eugene Landy on surviving film footage of the eccentric doctor, both his speech patterns and his mannerisms. "Love & Mercy" is more than a piece of entertainment, it's a respectful tribute to Brian Wilson's life.

I'd like to add a few personal thoughts, based on my impression of Dr. Eugene Landy, pictured above with Brian Wilson (the real people, not the actors). Mental illnesses do exist, and psychiatrists are necessary to treat them, but in my opinion there should be more stringent controls on what psychiatrists are doing. It's true that Dr. Landy was an extreme case, but it happens more often than people think. I too spent 17 months in the hands of an abusive psychiatrist, Dr. Jeremy Kenney-Herbert.

My closer friends already know about this, but I'll give some brief details here. In 2000 I was suffering from depression.after a relationship break-up. I was caught up in a vicious circle. The depression caused me to lose my job, and I was refused unemployment benefits, so I ended up sleeping on the streets, which made me even more depressed. An Anglican priest advised me to commit a small crime, because being in prison would give me free food and board. I couldn't do this, because I have a natural aversion to breaking the law.

One day I witnessed a man committing a violent assault. I saw a chance to be arrested without committing a crime. When the police came I confessed to the assault and they arrested me. Unfortunately, I'm not a very good liar. After three hours of questioning they were convinced it wasn't me and sent me back onto the streets. I kept up my story in the hope that I would be re-arrested, but it never happened. After telling my story to a G.P. I visited, Dr. Benn in Ladywood, I was referred to Dr. Kenney-Herbert, and I was admitted to a mental hospital. That was fantastic. A comfortable room, three meals a day and nice people to talk to.

The first 10 days were okay. Then I was transferred to another hospital, and the worst time of my life began. Imagine the situation. There were 12 patients on the ward. 11 of them were young (under 35), black and violent. Then there was me. They noticed straight away that I didn't fit in. A rumour spread that I was an undercover policeman, and I was frequently beat up. I don't blame Dr. Kenney-Herbert for considering me to be violent when he first met me. After all, that was what I told him. But after my admittance into hospital he requested details about me from the police. He read the police report, but nobody else in the hospital ever saw it, because it was "lost". It's obvious that after reading the report he realised his mistake, but rather than admitting to it he tried to cover it up. I stuck to my story for two weeks after my admittance into hospital. (After my initial arrest and release I was put on bail for 7 weeks, so I continued to claim to be guilty for this time. After the 7 weeks were over I admitted that I had lied about it).

I had difficulty making out Dr. Kenny-Herbert's motives. At first I thought he was incompetent in the way he treated me, but as time progressed I realised he was malicious. He wanted me to be attacked by the other patients, hoping that I would retaliate, because that would prove to everyone that I was violent. After months of mistreatment without retaliation he tried a different tactic. He claimed that the only reason I got into so many fights was because I was attacking the other patients first.

It was obvious that Dr. Kenney-Herbert wanted to keep me locked up for the rest of my life. He might have succeeded, if I hadn't been extremely lucky. He was transferred temporarily for six months. The psychiatrist who replaced him, Dr. Russell, read my files and immediately noticed something was wrong. He interviewed me at length two days in a row. At the end of the second interview he asked me, "Do you know why you're in this hospital?" I replied "No", to which he answered, "Neither do I. Let's see about getting you out as quickly as possible".

So it isn't just Dr. Eugene Landy. Other psychiatrists such as Dr. Jeremy Kenney-Herbert can be just as malicious, doing everything they can to harm the patients in their care. This is wrong. I was helpless. I was vulnerable. I was suffering from depression and unable to defend myself. In fact, all my time in hospital I never received any treatment for depression. If anything, my state of mind deteriorated while I was in hospital, and I didn't start to recover until I was released.

Hot Tub Time Machine (4 Stars)

Embrace the chaos!

Before anyone says that the idea of travelling through time in a hot tub sounds silly, let me tell you that it's no less ridiculous than a police box. In fact, it's a shame that when the Doctor Who TV series was invented they didn't let the Tardis look like a hot tub. We would have seen the Doctor's companions wearing bikinis for the last 50 years.

Adaptation (5 Stars)

"You are what you love, not what loves you" (Donald Kaufman).

This is probably the cleverest film ever made. Note that I didn't say the best. Whether or not you like it will depend on whether or not you like intelligent films. A film that just uses action to entertain the audience isn't necessarily a bad film. I enjoy action films. Some films go halfway by containing deep philosophical thoughts or political messages. Good films as well. But then there's "Adaptation". From the beginning to the end it sets out to puzzle the viewer. It's a true story. It's also a work of fiction. But where is the dividing line? When the film reaches its final scene where the film's screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman, dictates what he's doing into a voice recorder we still don't know where to draw the line between fiction and reality.

Basically, the film is about Charlie Kaufman writing the screenplay of a film about himself writing a screenplay about himself. That would be enough in itself to make most people's head spin, but the confusion runs deeper. Charlie Kaufman -- the real Charlie Kaufman who wrote "Adaptation" -- would be a psychiatrist's dream patient. In the film he invents a twin brother who is his complete opposite, then kills him and gives him the credit for writing his screenplay. That's not just in the film, or in the film about the film, it's in real life. Donald Kaufman, a man who has never existed, was nominated for an Academy Award in 2003, making him the only person ever to be nominated for an Academy Award who didn't exist. After killing his brother Charlie becomes his brother.

This is a film that deserves a full psycho-analytical analysis. I'm afraid to attempt it myself, because I'm sure that whatever I write I'll look at it a week later and realise that I've left out half of the film's meaning.

Maps to the Stars (3¾ Stars)

After seeing this film in the cinema I found it difficult to review. I cheated by checking reviews written by other people, but I don't like their reviews either. I think the problem is that the film has different stories which are interlocked by sharing the same people, but actually have little to do with one another. It's the same scenario that we have in "Magnolia", except that P. T. Anderson makes a big deal of stories happening in parallel while David Cronenberg just lets them happen.

Let me attempt a partial synopsis of the film. Spoiler-free, of course. Dr. Stafford Weiss (John Cusack) is a psychotherapist who has become a millionaire through television appearances, self-help books and treating the Hollywood stars. His unconventional counselling techniques involve talking to the actresses -- he only has female clients? -- while massaging them. But there are several dark secrets in his life. His wife is his sister. His 13-year-old son Benjie, the star of "Bad Babysitter", has just spent four years in drug rehab. His 18-year-old daughter Agatha (Mia Wasikowska) was sent to a mental asylum as a child after starting a fire, and he refuses to let her contact his family.

Agatha returns to Hollywood with the intention of marrying her brother. After all, she's only following the example set my her parents. She returns using a false name to avoid suspicion. At the airport she meets and grows attached to Jerome (Robert Pattinson), a young man who is working as a limo driver while trying to make it as a screenwriter. She becomes the personal assistant of Havana Segrand (Julianne Moore), an aging actress and one of Dr. Weiss's patients, who is desperate to star in a film remake in which she would play the same role that her now deceased mother played 30 years earlier.

The film is a savaging attack on the Hollywood film community and the people who populate it. The teen stars that Benjie mixes with are the ugliest of all. They've entered an adult world, and they've adopted its conventions to survive. They talk bad about others behind their backs and fight their way to the top by trampling on their peers. The adults too are heartless. When the son of Havana's friend Azita (Jayne Heitmeyer) dies, Havana pretends to be sympathetic, but she's really pleased because Azita is no longer able to star in a film role that Havana wanted.

I don't think my synopsis does the film justice, even though it's better than anything else I've read so far. I've omitted many things that are going on, but it should give you a rough impression. It's a film worth seeing more than once. It confused me on first viewing, but there's a good chance I'll rate it higher next time I see it.

Being John Malkovich (4½ Stars)

I have been to the dark side, I have seen a world that no man should see.

Craig Schwartz (John Cusack) is an unemployed puppeteer in New York. He lives in a basement apartment with his wife Lotte (Cameron Diaz) and her many exotic pets, which include parrots, iguanas and chimpanzees. He takes a temporary job as a filing clerk. One evening, while working late, he finds a secret door hidden behind a filing cabinet. This door leads into John Malkovich's head. Anyone who enters can see through John Malkovich's eyes for 15 minutes, after which he's thrown out onto the grass at the side of the New Jersey Turnpike.

This seemingly absurd film throws up so many philosophical questions. The first time you watch it you have to laugh. You could mistakenly think you're watching a Woody Allen film. After you see it the second time you begin to see the bigger issues. It's a film about reality, identity, gender roles and control.

When I first saw this film I gave all the credit to the writer, Charlie Kaufman. He's written several amazing films, including "Adaptation" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". I paid no attention to the director Spike Jonze, who has made his career directing music videos. After seeing "Her" earlier this year, which Spike Jonze both wrote and directed, I can look back and see his influence on this film.

This message appeared at the end of the credits. All the characters portrayed in the film are fictitious? That's strange. I thought that John Malkovich really existed. Wikipedia says he does, but sometimes Wikipedia lies.

What is this strange power that John Malkovich exudes?

Hot Tub Time Machine (4 Stars)

Be warned! When four men get naked and jump into a hot tub together strange things can happen.

The film was made and takes place in 2010 and centres around three middle-aged friends, Adam, Nick and Lou. All three are stuck in dead end jobs and have relationship problems. Adam has just split up with his girlfriend, Nick's wife is cheating on him and the only girls Lou can get are hookers. After Lou makes an unsuccessful suicide attempt, Adam suggests that they spend a weekend at the Kodiak Valley Ski Resort, the place they used to go when they were young. They take Adam's nephew Jacob with them.

Unfortunately the resort has fallen on hard times. There are very few guests, and most of the shops in the town have been boarded up and abandoned. The three friends jump naked into their hotel room's hot tub, and Jacob grudgingly joins them. Due to Jacob spilling his can of soda on the controls the hot tub malfunctions, and when they get out they're in 1986. The three friends are occupying the bodies of their younger selves, even though they see themselves in their older forms. Jacob (who wasn't born in 1986) remains the same.

A mysterious hot tub repair man tells the friends that until he has fixed the tub they should re-enact the same things that they did on this evening in 1986 to prevent time ripples that could destroy the world. At first they decide to follow his advice, but then they realise that it would be more fun to do things better the second time round.

The whole premise of this film is ridiculously silly, and yet it works. The friends, played by John Cusack, Rob Corddry and Craig Robinson, are so likeable that their bubbly personalities disguise any plot deficiencies. It's a fun film that was deservedly a big box office success. Sure, the humour is homophobic and misogynistic, but aren't those the funniest films?

Raising Helen (3 Stars)

Helen Harris is a successful career woman who works as an agent in the fashion industry. She's single and happy, living a life of glamour. Everything changes when her sister Linsey is killed in a car accident, and she is appointed legal guardian of her three children. The film follows her successes and failures as an unwilling mother.

About half an hour in Helen meets a Lutheran pastor, and I realised that the rules of a romantic comedy were being applied. In many ways this film is similar to "Overboard". The main difference is that in "Overboard" the romantic comedy aspect is the main plot and the children are a subplot, while in "Raising Helen" it's the other way round.

Kate Hudson is very likeable in her role as Helen. The rest of the cast, both the adults and the children, fit in well. I was pleasantly surprised to see Kevin Kilner as Helen's brother-in-law Ed. I know him from his leading role in "Earth Final Conflict", but this is the first film I've seen him in. In my opinion he's an undiscovered actor. He should be given bigger roles.

Shanghai (4½ Stars)

This is the best example of film noir that I've seen in years. The film was made with a big budget and is shot in an exotic location, but it retains all the characteristics of film noir. But since there are supposedly differences in opinion on what "film noir" is, let me tell you what the key elements are.

1. There is a murder.

2. There is a male detective working to solve the murder. Though usually a private detective it might be a policeman or someone acting as a detective would. The detective is often flawed, for instance a drinker or a chain smoker.

3. There is a dangerous woman involved with the detective, a femme fatale.

4. The film is made either in black and white, or with subdued colours.

5. The film's pace is slow, relying on a dark mood rather than action.

If you check the Wikipedia page you will find a broader definition, but I disagree with most of what is written. If the five elements listed above aren't included it's not film noir. Wikipedia is a useful tool, but it isn't always right.

The film begins in October 1941, two months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Paul Soames (John Cusack) is an undercover agent working for U.S. Naval Intelligence. His cover is as a reporter who writes pro-German articles for an American newspaper. After spending time in Berlin he is transferred to Shanghai. While there he discovers that his best friend, also a secret agent, has been murdered. He makes finding his friend's killer his priority.

Shanghai was a fascinating but dangerous city when Soames arrived. Most of China had been conquered by the Japanese, but Shanghai was jointly occupied by various powers and divided into sectors, the British, the French, the German and the Japanese. Nevertheless, everyone knew that it was only a matter of time before Japan took the whole city for itself. The Chinese resistance saw Shanghai as their last battleground against the Japanese.

Soames works in the British sector, where his American newspaper is located, but his investigations lead him into the other sectors. He meets and befriends Anthony Lan-Ting, the city's Chinese crimelord, as well as the city's Japanese intelligence officer, who likes him because of his pro-German articles. But he also embarks on a dangerous relationship with Lan-Ting's wife, the film's obligatory femme fatale.

The film's slow, plodding pace makes a refreshing change to all the Hollywood action films made today. There should be more films like this. I highly recommend it to my readers.

Broadcast News (1 Star)

In 1987 this film was nominated for seven Oscars, including best film. I just don't understand it. The film bored me from beginning to end. I only watched it to the end because I'd already read rave reviews and I expected something exciting to happen. It didn't.

The film is about three employees in the news division of a television company. Jane is the workaholic producer, Aaron is a talented but bland news reporter, Tom is the charismatic news anchor. Both Aaron and Tom fall for Jane, and she's torn between the two.

For me the love triangle is unconvincing and not at all moving. I couldn't sympathise with either of the men, both are unpleasant characters in different ways. I couldn't relate to the chaos of the news business. The film was touted as a comedy, but to me it wasn't funny. Maybe it's just too American for me. I checked the list of the many awards and nominations the film received, and apart from two at the Berlin Film Festival all the awards were American. That could be the problem. Maybe it's a film that only appeals to Americans. Please leave comments if you have anything to say about this film.

Pushing Tin (3½ Stars)

I don't often watch films at random. I don't have television (i.e. I'm unable to receive television broadcasts) so I don't flick through channels and watch something out of boredom just because it's on. I plan my viewing carefully. I almost always know what I'm going to watch tomorrow. It might be a film I've seen before, or a film recommended to me, or a film I've read a review of. There's always a reason I watch a film. But not this one. I'd never heard of it, I just watched it. How did that happen?

I wanted to watch a film called "Mr. Holland's Opus", which was very strongly recommended to me by a friend. I checked online, and the DVD costs £3.50. Too much for me. But further searching told me that there was a box of three films that includes "Mr. Holland's Opus" for only £1.99. A good price, considering the usual rental price in England for one film is £2.50. So I bought it. And this is one of the other two films. I read the description on the box and decided to watch this first.

John Cusack plays Nick Falzone, a self-confident New York air traffic controller. As I understand now, after watching the film, air traffic control is not just about guiding aircraft through the sky so that they take off and land safely, it's also about doing this optimally with the least possible delays. This is a critical job in this area where three of the world's largest airports, JFK, Newark and LaGuardia are within 20 miles of one another. Nick is the best at his job, until Russell Bell (Billy Bob Thornton) is transferred from a smaller airport. Russell is eccentric and anti-social, but he's good at his job. He also has a beautiful wife Mary (Angelina Jolie) who is an alcoholic. After Nick has a one-night stand with Mary the professional rivalry turns into a personal battle.

The film is difficult to classify. It's not really a comedy, but it's not quite serious either. It shows the confusion of people sitting at screens all day arranging blips in a 3-D computer game with thousands of lives at stake. I found the film difficult to relate to. So far from my own world. I encourage any of my readers who have seen this film to leave comments

Click here to view the trailer.

Adaptation (5 Stars)

For a film that was nominated for several Oscars in 2002, including a win for Chris Cooper as best supporting actor, it's amazing how few people know this masterpiece of cinema. The following review contains spoilers, so read on with care. Normally I try to avoid spoilers, but I don't know any other way to write this review.

At its core it's a true story. A successful Hollywood screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman, is asked to write a screenplay for a best-selling book, "The Orchid Thief". After reading it he realises that he can't see any way to adapt the book to film, so he sinks into depression and insecurity, hindered by the presence of his identical twin brother, Donald, who is everything he isn't. While Charlie is a social misfit and is unable to write, Donald dates girls and quickly churns out a detective thriller. Nicolas Cage plays both brothers to perfection. Charlie is encouraged to spice up the book, adding elements such as sex, drugs and violence to make it more appealing to the audience, but he refuses.

Finally Charlie makes a breakthrough when he decides to write a film about himself writing the film. This is where it gets complicated, especially when the viewer realises he's watching a film about a film about a film. Actually it's a film about a film about a film about a book about true events. As the film progresses the viewer has increasing difficulty to distinguish between fiction and reality. Are we seeing the real events, or things that Charlie invented for the sake of entertainment? In fact, does Donald really exist, or is he a product of Charlie's multiple personality disorder? It's significant that the film in the film doesn't get written until Donald is killed.

Maybe that's the reason "Adaptation" isn't more popular? It's too intelligent for the mass audience. Despite Charlie's eventual capitulation, dumbing down his film by adding sex, drugs and violence, the film still hovers on a high intellectual plain. If you want a film that will make you think, watch this. You won't be disappointed.

Interestingly, Donald Kaufman was nominated for an Oscar for the best adapted screenplay jointly with his brother Charlie. This is the only time in the history of the Academy Awards that someone who didn't exist was nominated for an award.