--- title: "Adaptation.: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/adaptation/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/adaptation" critics_score: 74 critics_reviews: 7 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Adaptation. (2002): what the critics said Critics' score 74 from 7 reviews: 6 positive, 0 mixed, 1 negative. Most critics respond warmly to Adaptation., praising the way Jonze and Kaufman turn the difficulty of adapting The Orchid Thief into a funny, searching account of creative struggle. The praise centres on the writing’s shifts between fact and invention, Jonze’s handling of bizarre material, and the film’s interest in obsession and self-doubt. Performances also draw repeated approval, particularly Nicolas Cage’s dual role, which several reviews find both comic and essential to making the complicated storytelling work. The final third is the main point of disagreement, with even favourable reviews finding that the film loses balance or fails to resolve its earlier ideas. The Evening Standard offers the sharpest rejection, arguing that clichés and melodrama undermine the invention; Slant Magazine, by contrast, finds the Hollywood ending earned. The spread is therefore wider than the broadly positive consensus suggests: critics largely admire the approach, but differ over where it leads. ## Screen Daily Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 22 November 2002. Jonze delivers a great film about filmmaking and the creative process that ranks with the classics; it is witty, bold, endlessly clever and ultimately profound as a moving meditation on the search for meaning and passion in life. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/adaptation/4011346.article) ## IndieWire Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 3 December 2002. The review celebrates Jonze and Kaufman's bold, meta approach to adapting The Orchid Thief as a story of creative struggle and obsession. It highlights the film's fearless embrace of complexity and self-reflexivity as its core strength. [Read the review](https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/culture/review-obsession-made-even-more-lunatic-jonze-and-kaufmans-fearless-adaptation-80098/) ## Total Film Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 28 February 2003. A head-fuck comedy that is funny, profound and wild, with strong performances and a shrewd capture of the source material's essence. It loses some balance in the final third as symbolism takes over, but remains a dizzying, unique work close to genius. [Read the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/adaptation-review/) ## Empire — Caroline Westbrook Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 28 February 2003. The film is an audacious, original experience of inspired lunacy from the Jonze-Kaufman team that baffles and dazzles in equal measure. It excels in performances, especially Cage's dual role, but may prove too surreal for all tastes with a climax that baffles or patronises some viewers. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/adaptation-review/) ## Time Out — TCh Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 10 September 2012. The film is a discursive, unpredictable comedy that is astute about the diffidence afflicting the intellectual elite and the self-consuming nature of obsession. It is close to genius for two-thirds of its running time but lacks a third act. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/adaptation) ## The New Yorker — David Denby Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 2 December 2002. The critic finds the film resourceful and light on its feet for most of its length, perceptive and funny with original whims, though it falls apart at the end. He singles out Spike Jonze's talent for the gently bizarre image and the filmmakers' rebellion against movie business conventions. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/12/09/hothouse) ## Evening Standard — Alexander Walker Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2012. The film is a genial joke at the expense of angst-ridden writers that turns into a relationship comedy between a screenwriter and his material. Its final third descends into contemptuous clichés and a mishmash of melodrama that undermines the earlier invention. [Read the review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/spanner-in-the-movie-machine-7428836.html) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan 6 December 2002. The critic calls the film dazzlingly funny and a wonderful essay on the creative process. He singles out how intrinsically cinematic the through-the-looking-glass narrative style is and the way it makes illusion/reality leaps accessible on screen. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-dec-06-et-turan6-story.html) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert 20 December 2002. The critic calls the film a bewilderingly brilliant and entertaining movie that is a filmmaking miracle combining the story of a movie being made, orchid thievery, and fiction blended with real life. He singles out the lighthearted darkness of the performances, particularly Chris Cooper and Nicolas Cage, for praise. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/adaptation-2002) ## Slant Magazine — Ed Gonzalez 2 December 2002. The review describes Adaptation as a rocky but ultimately beautiful and transcendent film that cleverly parallels the creative process with the elusive nature of orchids. It singles out the film's self-conscious yet authentic take on authorship, evolution, and its earned Hollywood ending as particularly effective. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/adaptation/) ## The AV Club — Scott Tobias 6 December 2002. The critic calls Adaptation a brilliant meta-comedy that turns the struggle to adapt The Orchid Thief into a profound exploration of creativity, self-doubt, and the power of storytelling. It praises the balance of playfulness and sincerity achieved by Kaufman and Jonze, along with strong performances especially from Cage. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/adaptation-1798198109) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw 28 February 2003. This is a funny, complex take on the idea of storytelling, like a funky flip-side to The Hours. The critic praises the hilarious and seductive story of the Kaufman twins and Cage's performances but finds the Orlean/Laroche subplot distant and inert. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2003/feb/28/artsfeatures3) ## The New York Times — A. O. Scott Rating NYT Critic’s Pick. 6 December 2002. The critic describes the film as one of the slipperiest, most fascinating and best movies of the year, a self-referential exercise in auto-deconstruction that confronts the impossibility and necessity of storytelling. He praises the technical stunts and the collaboration between Kaufman and Jonze. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/06/movies/film-review-forever-obsessing-about-obsession.html) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Rating *****. 26 February 2003. The critic praises the film as a daring, original work about the purgatory of the creative process. They single out the inventive mixing of real and imaginary elements, along with strong performances especially from Nicolas Cage in dual roles. [Read the review](http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/adaptation-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/adaptation.md