FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

educallejero Well. It requires a good performance from Nicholas Cage. And this time, he nails it. Because the movie is a comedy as much as anything, Cage's quirks are perfect. The drama is brought by the great Meryl Streep. In terms of the writing and plot, is truth that at times Kaufman wants to show how smart he is (he is) and can get a little annoying (just a bit). But when is over, you are going to realize how different and good this movie was.

jonsefcik The first time I watched this movie, I thought "this is either pretentious garbage or pure genius". After letting it sink in for a few days, I thought about it and certain pieces started fitting together. I decided to give it a second watch, and afterwards I was like "oh of course, its genius".I think a lot of people who criticize this film don't understand what the film is going for. I'll try not to spoil anything, but I left a disclaimer since I'll be roughly outlining the plot. A common criticism I see is that the film tries to reject the Hollywood screen writing clichés but chickens out at the end for a dumb action-packed climax. Here's the thing: The film uses the 3-act structure in an ironic way. The film is about the writing of the film. Early on in the film, Charlie Kaufman (the character, not the real person) is trying to stay faithful to the source material he's given to adapt. The source material is The Orchid Thief, a nonlinear book that doesn't really follow a typical 3-act structure. When he experiences writer's block, he asks his twin brother, who went to a screen writing seminar, for help. He even goes to the screen writing seminar himself. Every piece of advice he gets makes the script more formulated, and thus so does the film. It should be fairly obvious once we see Susan Orlean (the character, not the real person) snorting plant drugs and fornicating with John Laroche (the character) that fiction has taken over. That's also why Charlie and Donald follow her to Florida, and crazy stuff involving guns and an alligator ensues. The film's ending works on multiple levels. It can be enjoyed by the average moviegoer as a dumb fun climax but more discerning viewers will be in on the joke.One thing I want to bring up before I wrap up is Nicolas Cage's performance as the fictional Charlie Kaufman. At first I thought "oh come on, there's no way anyone is that insecure and submissive" but then I saw videos of interviews with the real Charlie Kaufman and was like "oh wow, Nick Cage nailed it". Its not an exact recreation, but it definitely works as a fictional portrayal.There's more details I'll leave for you to discover on your own. All you have to know is this is a very clever film and serves as a great satire of Hollywood tropes. Personally, I think this movie is perfect, and there's nothing I would change that I could imagine making the film objectively better. Charlie Kaufman is one of the most fascinating screenwriters working in Hollywood today and I'd say all of his films are worth a watch!

julestaschner ...but I don't. I have seen every Kaufman written movie Adaptation. and on, excluding Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. And I have loved every single one and they are all 10/10 perfect movies in my mind. Synecdoche, New York being my favorite film of all time.But something didn't work here. And after re-watching it one more time I think I got it. You see, all the parts with Charlie Kaufman as a struggling writer and writing the story as it goes are some of the best Kaufman stuff ever made. And the third act perfectly ties things together by letting everything that Kaufman didn't want to happen, happen. And its awful/great. But every single time it cut back to Meryl Streep in The Orchid Thief I found myself utterly bored. None of these parts seemed that integral to Kaufman's plot, so I wonder why he bothered by having them in this movie this much. I have never been this disappointed in a writer. The movie is great, but it focuses on the wrong things.

TheHaratashi . What a waste of time and a waste of NC's talent. This role didn't fit NC at all. He just wasn't believable in this role of playing, or should I say over playing, a pathetic socially timid dufus. The movie itself was boring as can be and I didn't care about any of the characters. It's ironic that NC goes to a writing seminar in the movie - I think the people that wrote this movie should have gone to a writing seminar. It's boring, slow, dumb, and about as uninteresting as it can get. Awful movie from every angle.