Adaptation. (2002) *****

Some books are easier than others to adapt to the screen. Susan Orlean's “The Orchid Thief” is a sprawling, ruminative meditation on life, flowers, and a Florida horticulturist named John Laroche. Laroche is a toothless plant-poacher with an endless willingness to expound on his philosophy of life. He's a great interview subject for a New Yorker journalist like Orlean, and he's the kind of singular character who belongs in a movie. If Laroche is movie-ready, however, Orlean's book is not. A genius was needed to mold “The Orchid Thief” into a screenplay, so the movie studio turned to the genius behind “Being John Malkovich,” screenwriter Charlie Kaufman.

As the story goes, even Kaufman developed writer's block in the face of “The Orchid Thief.” Out of ideas, he finally decided to write a movie about his own writer's block. “Adaptation.” is the story of fat, balding screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage), a guy so awkward that he can't even use his status as a working screenwriter to hit on a waitress. In Hollywood! This is a guy who could fall into a barrel of tits and come out sucking his own thumb! Kaufman, stuck in his own head, awkwardly lurks on the set of “Being John Malkovich” while struggling to come up with a way to faithfully adapt “The Orchid Thief”. Meanwhile, his (fictional) twin brother, Donald (also Cage), successfully loafs through life, sleeping in Charlie's spare room, hitting on makeup girls, and annoying Charlie by embarking on his own screenwriting project.

Charlie becomes enamored of orchids and develops a crush on Susan Orlean, but his screenplay is still nothing more than the tale of a New York reporter interviewing an eccentric horticulturist. He needs something exciting, some kind of story arc, some kind of drama, but there's nothing in the book that provides that. Then Charlie and Donnie start to suspect that there is something Orlean isn't telling us, that she discovered more than a story idea down in Florida. They set out to find out what she is hiding, and the story takes a wild turn.

At one point, Kaufman describes himself as a snake swallowing its own tale, and that's exactly what his narrative does for a while. The on-screen Kaufman starts to write his own writer's block into his script, then he writes about himself writing his writer's block into the script. The decision to investigate Orlean is what breaks Charlie out of this dead-end cycle, and astute viewers will recognize this as the point where Charlie gives up on being faithful to the book and begins to employ serious artistic license.

Charlie gets an assist from a screenwriting seminar by Robert McKee (played brilliantly by Brian Cox). The real-life McKee is a creative-writing professor and author of the unofficial “screenwriter's bible.” The on-screen McKee tells Charlie, “The last act makes a film. Wow them in the end, and you've got a hit.” By the time Charlie is done, a story that wasn't supposed to have sex, guns, car chases, or characters “learning profound life lessons or growing or coming to like each other or overcoming obstacles to succeed in the end” winds up having all of those things.

Directed by Spike Jones, “Adaptation.” is meta, funny, sexy, and mind-blowingly brilliant. And it wows us in the end.

5 stars out of 5

Passengers (2016) ***1/2

An interstellar vessel hurtles through space, full of hibernating colonists and crew, on a 120-year journey to a new planet. An unexpected asteroid field puts a strain on the ship's shields, causing one of the sleep pods to malfunction and wake up its passenger, Jim (Chris Pratt). Imagine Jim's growing horror as he discovers that 1) He is the only person awake on the ship. 2) They are still 90 years from their destination. and 3) There is no way for him to go back into hibernation. Jim goes through all the stages of despair as he exhausts every possible way to reactivate his sleep pod, get a message to earth, or break into the secure crew quarters to wake one of them up.

After a year of this frustration and solitude, Jim is bearded and depressed. Only two things keep him going. One is the robot bartender, Arthur, who can not only converse, but dispense bartenderly advice. The other is his growing infatuation with a sleeping fellow passenger (Jennifer Lawrence), a writer named Aurora Lane (I know, it's a stripper name. Just go with it.). Jim agonizes over what to do about Aurora. He can't reactivate a sleep pod, but he has figured out how to wake someone up from one. He could wake Aurora up and have a companion, but then he would have damned her to live out her life in deep space, missing out, like him, on the colony they are all destined for. Spoiler alert: He does it, and then has to live with the guilt. On top of that, there's a problem with the ship.

“Passengers” is beautifully filmed, with impressive space imagery, but at its core, it isn't science fiction. Jim's ethical dilemma is the beating heart of the story. Essentially trapped on a desert island, he has the opportunity to have someone join him on the island, but then, of course, she will be trapped there, too. How much solitude could you endure before you gave in to that temptation?

In the end, Jim and Aurora face the same existential questions we all do. We all at some point have to make the best of a situation that isn't what we wanted. When our dreams are utterly out of reach, how do we find a new dream? How do we forgive those who wrong us, and how do we forgive ourselves?

Considering the weight of the questions it deals with, “Passengers” doesn't have quite as much gravity as it should. You could rightfully accuse the plot of being a bit predictable, and wrapped up too neatly and too quickly. There's a lot of food for thought, but you have to cook most of it yourself, as the end of the film feels hurried. Still, this is a decent story with charming actors. Most of the reviews I have read on it were negative, but I think it's well worth a watch.

3.5 stars out of 5

Performance (1970) ***

“Performance” is ostensibly a crime drama, but what it is really about is sexual identity, or just identity in general. James Fox plays Chas, a British gangster who spends his days brutally intimidating people. He enjoys his work, perhaps too much. When he pushes the wrong guy's buttons, he winds up having to kill him, which puts Chas in trouble with his boss. On the run from the London underworld, Chas dyes his hair and rents a basement room in what turns out to be the home of a faded rock star named Turner (Mick Jagger). Turner lives there with his girlfriend Pherber (Anita Pallenberg) and the androgynous Lucy (Michele Breton).

Turner and Chas don't hit it off at first. Chas describes his new housemates as “long-hairs, beatniks, druggers.” Still, Chas can't help but be attracted to the ladies in the house, and he becomes fascinated, as well, with Turner's artistic energy. As he dallies with them, Chas starts to open his mind to his own artistic, and feminine, side.

This is definitely one for when you're in the mood for some art-house fare. The camera work is shaky, the acting is iffy, and the plot is really just a weak excuse to get to the orgies, gender-bending, and naked Anita Pallenberg. Still, “Performance” has a certain artistic spirit that can't be denied. James Fox is like a British Steve McQueen, tough and iconically masculine, which makes it rather trippy to watch Anita Pallenberg get him to dress like a girl. The chemistry between Chas and Turner is also interesting. The thrill that Chas gets from violence is not unlike Turner's artistic drive. These two complete opposites recognize a kindred spirit within each other.

As interesting as the movie itself is the controversy surrounding it. The rumor is that Mick Jagger and Anita Pallenberg had actual intercourse during the sex scenes. That wouldn't be all that scandalous except for the fact that Pallenberg was Keith Richard's girlfriend at the time. Meanwhile, the movie studio thought they were bankrolling a Rolling Stones version of one of those happy-go-lucky Beatles movies. Instead they got this weird, psychedelic experiment that was banned in many venues. It seems you can't always get what you want.

3 stars out of 5