• Included as a bonus feature in Warner Home Video’s 2006 2-disc DVD release “TCM Archives – Laurel and Hardy Collection”.

**** (out of 4)

This documentary, taken from Leonard Maltin's book, tells the story ofhow short films were a major force behind the studios from 1926 untilthe late 50s. The movie takes its time in showing all of the studio andwhat films they were working on. We see clips from Laurel and Hardy,Charley Chase, Three Stooges, Pete Smith, Joe McDoakes, Traveltalk,Crime Does Not Pay and various other popular series. This documentarydoes a great job at telling the story of these films and we also getall kinds of information that I didn't really think about before.There's also talk of how many of the shorts are what drew people to thetheaters instead of the actual feature. There's a lot of stories beingtold and I'm sure each of these series could have gotten their owndocumentaries but this film is a good place for people to start. Youget audio interviews from Harold Lloyd and Hal Roach as well as liveinterviews from various members of the Our Gang series as well ascurrent stars. Chevy Chase narrates.

2) Fun documentary on short subjects–they used to play before movies intheatres. They explain how it started and show Hal Roach as the firstman who started comedy shorts with the Our Gang (later Little Rascels)and Laurel and Hardy and such. We see early vitophone shorts;vaudeville and novelty acts; 3D shorts (as early as the 1940s!); theThree Stooges; famous actors and directors who started in shorts;travelogues; serials and cartoons. It seems television killed them inthe 1950s. The film primarily focuses on the MGM short studio (nosurprise–TCM co produced this and they own the library of all MGMmovies). There's some incredible stuff here but it's too short (no punintended). They also just focus on MGM and almost entirely ignore theother studios. Still, within its limits, this is fun and entertaining.I give it an 8.

3) Of course a documentary about short subject films can only skim thetopic–and that is the biggest reason the film only gets a 7. It's awell-made film for TCM but so many important things are just tooquickly glossed over. I could easily have seen this made into a seriesinstead of one show. In particular, I would have loved to have seenmore emphasis on the short comedies–and this COULD make up an entiredocumentary by itself or a series of documentaries. Also, some shortssuch as travelogues and early appearances by later stars might havebeen handled but weren't. I'm not complaining about what this is–it isdone well. It's just that too much can't be crammed into a singledocumentary.

Gomez Addams returns home to find things far more strangerthannormal. The family’s crooked lawyer, Tully Alfford, haskidnappedMorticia, Wednesday, Pugsley, Lurch, Grandmama and Thing and hasturnedthe family’s friendly spooks and creatures against them. Gomezmustsearch the house to rescue his family and put things right again.

He finds Lurch in the library and has him play music that opensthevault. Many tricky areas in there! Pugsley can be found in histrapdoor. Gomez will have to find a shrinking potion to help him. Next,hesearches the kitchen and ends up in the freezer. Be careful! It’sveryslippery and ice balls and penguins are everywhere. Wednesday isinthere, frozen. While she thaws, Gomez investigates the furnacewherehe finds Grandmama.

Upstairs, Gomez finds Thing and collects money that rainsdownon the balcony, but so do spiders so watch out! Make sure youcollectthe snorkel in the toy room or you will not survive the lake! Makesureyou’ve got the key to the vault. After his long and difficult questisover, Gomez goes for a showdown with Tully and rescuesMorticia.

A good game, though quite difficult. I’ve never beatenitbefore. Watch out for flying headless dolls in Wednesday’s room.Besure to collect any money or diamonds you see lying around, so allinall it’s a good game. It doesn’t have any actual relation to themoviebut it’s still good.

-

2):
For 25 years uncle Fester has been missing. An evil doctor finds out and introduces a fake Fester in an attempt to get the Adams Family’s money. The youngest daughter has some doubts as to the sincerity of the new uncle Fester. The fake uncle adapts very well to the strange family. Can the doctor carry out her evil plans and take over the Adams Family’s fortune?

• Director Barry Sonnenfeld had not originally planned to use the theme music from the television series in the movie. He included it in the opening sequence after positive reactions to the early trailer, which included the theme.
• Production began at Orion, which owned the rights to the Filmways TV library and hence the 1960s TV series. However, during production, Orion’s financial troubles, which ultimately led to the studio’s demise and purchase by MGM, began. Paramount bought the film rights, finished the production, and even produced a sequel.
• The Addamses’ house was built for $100,000 (USD).
• Writer Paul Rudnick did rewrites on the film and subsequently wrote the sequel, Addams Family Values (1993).
• Uncle Fester powering a light bulb with his mouth is a reference to the original TV series, where he does the same thing.
• Several scenes reference original Charles Addams illustrations, most notably the introduction sequence where the Addams family pours a cauldron of oil on the Christmas carolers, the passenger on Gomez’s toy train, the octopus painted on the footboard of Wednesday’s bed, and Pugsley with the road sign.
• The house set was built on Stage 3/8, the same stage as the house set from The “The Addams Family” (1964)_ TV series. For the TV series, it was known General Service Studios and for the movie, it is now known as Hollywood Center Studios.
• Bruno Kirby offered his fat suit from The Godfather: Part II (1974) to Christopher Lloyd in order to play Uncle Fester.
• The auction scene in which Morticia and Gomez take turns bidding for an item they themselves donated is based on a similar scene from the episode “Morticia’s Favorite Charity” from "The Addams Family" (1964).
• In the television series, Fester was Morticia’s uncle (and hence not technically an Addams), but in the films, he is Gomez’s brother and is referred to as Fester Addams.
• The film had an opening weekend of $25 million in the USA.
• The original director of photography, Owen Roizman, quit the production after about a month to go work on another film. His replacement, Gale Tattersall, had his contribution cut short not long afterwards when he had to quit after being rushed to hospital with a severe sinus infection. Fed up with the situation, director Barry Sonnenfeld took over the cinematography himself, reasoning that if anything happened to him then production would be shut down, so he didn’t have much to lose.
• Producer Scott Rudin got the idea of making the movie after shuttling various leading executives around in a van one day. One of them spontaneously started humming the theme song of "The Addams Family" (1964), only for the rest of the van’s occupants to start the singing the lyrics. This led Rudin to believe that there was sufficient residual interest and memory of the show and cartoon for him to attempt a feature film.
• Anjelica Huston drew inspiration for her portrayal of Morticia Adams not from Carolyn Jones from the TV series but by watching Grey Gardens (1975), David Maysles and Albert Maysles’s documentary about two eccentric old women found living in a decaying mansion. The women, Edith Bouvier Beale (AKA “Big Edie”) and Edith 'Little Edie' Bouvier Beale, are, respectively, the aunt and cousin of the late ‘Jacqueline Kennedy (I)’.
• The name Wednesday is a reference to the line in the Mother Goose poem that goes, “Wednesday’s child is full of woe.”
• Director Cameo: [Barry Sonnenfeld] the passenger on the model train that a giant Gomez looks into the window and laughs at before the two model trains crash into each other.
• In the original TV series Grandmama was Gomez’s mother and her name was Eudora Addams. In the films she is Morticia’s mother and he name was changed to Esmerelda Frump (Morticia’s mother in the series was Hestor Frump).
• One of the carolers in the opening sequence is Diane Burt, daughter of Alfred Burt, who wrote many famous Christmas carols.
• Early makeup designs for Gomez included dark circles around his eyes, similar to Fester’s. This was eliminated before filming, but can still be seen on the film’s posters and other publicity material.
• Cher wanted to play the role of “Morticia”, but Anjelica Huston was cast instead.
• Carol Kane can be seen in the background shots of some of the “Mamushka” scenes playing one of the Addams clan. She would later go on to play Grandmamam in Addams Family Values (1993).
• Some additional characters shown as Addamses (relatives which had more emphasis in the original script, but less screen-time) were: Dexter and Donald Addams (the two-headed cousin in matching turtlenecks); cousin Ophelia Addams (revealed to Morticia’s sister who looks like a Tennessee Williams heroine); Slosh Addams (a great, fat, toad-like man who was revealed in the script to have “made many a killing on Wall Street”); his child-sized wife, Lois; Digit Addams (a four-armed Addams with an over-aged Heidi-look-alike, complete with thick blonde braids, as his date); and Lumpy Addams (a teenage hunchback cousin in a loud blazer).
• Anthony Hopkins turned down the role of Uncle Fester.
• Mercedes McNab, who plays the girl scout selling her cookies, went on to play Amanda Buckman in Addams Family Values (1993).
• To make Anjelica Huston’s eyes look slanted like the original Morticia, the make-up artists had to attach stings with spirit gum to the outside corners of her eyes and anchor the stings on her head.
• As with the role of Grandmama, Uncle Fester switched sides of the family between the series and the films. In the film Fester is Gomez’s brother in the series he was Morticia’s uncle.
• The scene when Morticia trims the blooms off the roses is a direct reference to the television series. Also when the Addams family are evicted from the house Morticia is carrying a plant. Though shorter, the plant is identical to ‘Cleopatra’ Morticia’s meat eating, African strangler plant.
• By the time this movie was made, all of the adult cast members from the original series had died except John Astin, who had played Gomez.

• Revealing mistakes: Obvious use of juggling double for Raul Julia in long shots during Mamushka sequence.
• Continuity: When Thing uses Morse code to tell Gomez about Morticia’s kidnapping, he holds the spoon by the bowl end while the handle taps the table, but in the next shot, he’s holding the handle while the bowl end is tapping the table.
• Continuity: When Morticia is clearing the cupboard for the charity sale her hands are raised in the close-ups and lowered in the long-shots.

• Continuity: When Wednesday and Pugsley are selling lemonade there is only one sign behind them, but when Morticia goes to talk to Fester, she walks by the same spot and the sign is moved and another is there with the original next to it.
• Continuity: Wednesday pulls down one of the four levers on the electric chair, but in the next shot, the other two levers are pulled as well.
• Continuity: Grandmamma is seeing performing during the Mamushka, and also walking by Tully and the doctor while the Mamushka is being performed.
• Continuity: During Tully and Margaret Alford’s first visit to the Addams mansion, Thing appears to be lending a hand to the men in the office and the women in the attic simultaneously.
• Continuity: Near the end, when Tully and Dr. Pinder-Schloss are catapulted through the air, they switch positions before landing in their respective coffins.
• Continuity: When Margaret is examining the Chinese finger trap with Morticia, she inserts both her fingers in the device, which would trap them. In the next shot, her fingers have escaped the trap. Then, she inserts them a second time and this time they become stuck.
• Continuity: When Fester first comes out of the escape chute, he comes out of Pugsley’s, which is the left one. Later, when Wednesday escapes before the Mamushka, the escape chute covers are switched. When Tully, the doctor and Fester are trying to get into the vault and come out of the chute, the covers are switched back.
• Revealing mistakes: Lurch burns the wooden Indian outside the motel by breathing fire on to it. In later scenes, the Indian is restored.
• Continuity: At the bottom of the slide, on the way to the vault, Festers right hand is incorrectly switching between being at his side or at his throat between shots.
• Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers): Fester tells Wednesday to “Aim for a major artery: the jugular!” However, the jugular is a vein; the major artery in the neck is the carotid.
• Crew or equipment visible: When Fester climbs in his bedroom window after chasing Wednesday into the cemetery, you can see the harness on the back of his collar.
• Revealing mistakes: When Gomez tells Tully he cannot discuss new business until the next quarter, he flips a desk calendar to that day’s date, which is Monday, September 9, 1991. The opposite page of the calendar says Thursday, August 8, 1991.
• Revealing mistakes: When Thing is pulling the wagon with his belongings, the string pulling the wagon is visible.
• Continuity: During the school play, Wednesday cheek is smeared with blood at the moment of her death scene. When she turns to face the audience (and sprays the front row in the process) the blood on her cheek is no longer there.
• Continuity: When ‘Gordon’ and Tully meet for the first time in Tully’s office, Gordon grabs Tully by the shirt just below the neck. In the next shot his hand is around Tully’s throat.
• Continuity: When Morticia goes back to the Addams mansion to speak to Tully and is captured, and Thing follows her and goes back to the motel to tell Gomez, it’s obviously night. But when Gomez is at the table and Thing is trying to communicate, the room is filled with daylight. When they leave to save Morticia, it’s night again.

The performances in this movie are superb. It’s a black, black comedy, andas such, it requires a certain kind of actor. The kind who has the rightlook, the perfect comedic timing, and the ability to deliver lines sodeadpan it almost hurts.

Raul Julia, Anjelica Huston, and a young Christina Ricci somehow ALL manageto deliver. They’re truly a delight to watch, delivering the most macabrelines without even coming close to cracking a smile, yet having me institches every time. Even Christopher Lloyd, playing a far more energeticcharacter, manages to bring in a maniacal edge to the performance. I don’tthink there’s an actor in the movie who doesn’t understand the role theyplay.

The script is great material for them to work with too, extremely witty,rarely if ever falling on it’s face, and complemented with some fantasticsets. And let’s not forget the music. From the legendary theme tune, to theharpsichord jingles accompanying the visual gags, to the booming organsduring the heavier moments, it’s spot-on. The whole movie works as one tocapture *THE* Addams atmosphere, macabre as it’s ever been.

Sure, there’s a plot too, but while it drives the movie on, you’d watch thismovie for the wonderful theme, not for an intriguing plotline.

It’s a classic, and you’re doing yourself a disservice if you haven’t seenit, or if you think you’re too sensible for this kind ofmovie.

2) Although not all feature film versions of classic TV series have workedout, this enjoyable dark comedy from 1991 is one of the rare few toreally entertain.

Gomez (Raul Julia) and Morticia (Anjelica Huston) are the parentalunits of a macabre and twisted yet ultimately loving family that alsoincludes their children Wednesday (Christina Ricci, in one of herearliest roles) and Pugsley (Jimmy Workman – whatever happened tohim?), Granny (Judith Malina) and their associates Lurch (CarelStruycken) and Thing (Christopher Hart’s hand). Their slimy attorneyTully (a well-cast Dan Hedaya) makes the acquaintance of Gordon(Christopher Lloyd), the brutish son of the harridan (Elizabeth Wilson)to whom Tully is in debt. Tully, after noticing the remarkableresemblance Gordon has to the Addams’ long-lost Uncle Fester, plantshim in the household so that Gordon can attempt to plunder theirfortune.

This simple plot actually leads to a reasonably well-written movie withimpressive design and effects, and lots of good laughs. The actors playtheir parts so well I can’t help but be impressed. Although the worldof the Addams family is the brainchild of Charles Addams, I also findit reminiscent of a Tim Burton-type imagination as well.

One sequence that works quite well is when the Addams are forced fromtheir home and forced to live in "the real world". Thing even gets ajob as a courier for Fed Ex!

I think that it’s very entertaining and I don’t think I’d notice theflaws if I placed it under a microscope. Good job, all around.

"Are your girl scout cookies made from real girl scouts?"

10/10

3) So here it is: a feature look into the lives of the ghoulish familythat bears the name of their creator. In this case, Morticia (AnjelicaHuston) and Gomez (Raul Julia) are raising their family, when long lostUncle Fester (Christopher Lloyd) rejoins the family. But there may beother people who want the Addams’ house.

Most people don’t seem to realize that "The Addams Family" actually hadsome social commentary: everyone outside the Addams house considersthem weird because they live differently, but they’re actually a veryloving family. As it was, "The Addams Family" was always better than"The Munsters" (cleverer and not as silly). But anyway, this is thefeature, and it’s one of the few TV-to-movie adaptations that got itright.

4) "The Adams Family" is a very funny film that is very under rated. Witha great all star cast you get just what you expect, a great comedy. TheTV show was already funny enough, and then the movie came and I was onthe floor laughing. It’s fun to see a happy dysfunctional family. No,I’m not talking about "The Osbornes". All the characters are great andyou really get into it. If you can tell me that you honestly did notget one laugh from this film, there is something very wrong with you.Because it is a very funny film. I would recommend this to anyone. It’sa good watch on any day.

8/10

5) Generally, speaking this a pretty "fun movie" for most people, kids andadults. I think "fun" is the adjective most people would use indescribing this film.

As one who remembered the television series, I thought I would checkthis out, too. Angelica Huston certainly didn't match Carolyn Jones'beauty but she, along with Raul Julia, Christopher Lloyd and ChristiniaRicci all were entertaining to watch.

There certainly were no end to the colorful imagines, unique scenes anddialog, special-effects and – for those with a surround system, goodsound. It all made for an entertaining and fast-moving film.

I didn't find a lot of laugh-out-loud moments but it did bring a lot ofsmiles to my face. A lot of this is dark humor, so it helps toappreciate that type of comedy.

6) The Addams family are far from being normal but they are rich and assuch are their attorney’s only chance of getting rich. Tully has debtsup the yazoo and the only thing that stops his knees being violentlyreplaced with fresh air is the fact that Abigail Craven’s son Gordonlooks eerily like Gomez’s missing brother Fester. Shaving his head,Gordon enters the Addams home as Fester and tries to use his spare timeto get into the family vault. However Gomez’s joy at his return isgradually marred by a sneaking feeling that Fester is not himself –meanwhile Wednesday has no such doubts at all and is out to expose theimpostor.

One of the few remakes that actually works, The Addams Family takes theGothic humour of the TV series and makes it feel fresh andentertaining. The story is essentially a nail for us to hang our coatson so we can watch the gags come but even with this it is actuallypretty good. Making one of the family a "new character" is a clever wayof adding to the formula without having to bring in new characters tolead the film and it does work. Within this frame the twisted comedy israther entertaining and, although rarely laugh out loud funny, it isstill consistently amusing and enjoyable.

The cast are roundly good. Julia is a perfect Gomez and Huston is agreat Morticia despite the latter being a fairly one-note affair. Lloydis enjoyable in the lead and manages to do well to carry the "newcharacter" aspect of Fester without disrupting the dynamic of thefamily. Ricci is excellent and the only downside is that the filmdoesn’t give her enough to do; Workman is also good and has goodchemistry with her. Hedaya, Wilson, Ivey and others are strong insupport and generally do well to shore up the story.

Overall a kooky affair that is enjoyable in you are in the mood for itsparticular brand of dark silliness. The plot is more than enough to actas a frame, the jokes maybe don’t hit many real highs but they doconsistently get very close to the target and the fact that the actorsall buy into the joke makes it that little bit better. An enjoyableremake that succeeds because it has the strength to stand as its ownbeast.

7) Charles Addams’ dark characters get the film treatment in BarrySonnenfeld’s THE ADDAMS FAMILY, which is something of a cross betweenthe actual New Yorker comics and the 1960s television show. Not tryingto lean too far to either, the movie stays at a safe plane, evenincorporating a vague plot involving two grifters, Gordon and AbigailCraven, posing as Uncle Fester and a renowned psychiatrist (ChristopherLloyd and Elizabeth Wilson) who are in cahoots to rob the Addams oftheir fortune and house. The problem arises when Craven seems to goagainst his take-the-money-and-run attitude and when the Addamsthemselves appear to enjoy every minute that they’re being takenadvantage of. It suits the dark humor well, because since the Addamslive in an alternative universe of their own creation in which dark islight, repugnant is beautiful, pain equals pleasure, death is life, andchaos equals order, it leaves the door open for many of their Gothiceccentricities to pull the rug over Lloyd and Wilson over and overagain. It’s clever, although its only problem is the "needing tointroduce the characters we all know" setup which like in all moviesbased on comics or television shows, looks obvious.

But despite this, everyone is uniformly excellent. Raul Julia andAnjelica Huston lend their looks to embody their cartoon counterpartsand are the romantics at the heart of this decidedly perverse story.Christopher Lloyd is also great in his representation of Uncle Fester.But hands down: the one who walks away with the entire movie isChristina Ricci who plays Wednesday as if she were living the role dayby day. There’s a sadistic gleam in her eyes and her voice that notmany child actors have and I think that any other actor of the timethat this film was made would have been unable to fit into thisdifficult part. Other than that, the tone of the movie is perfect: asdark as it wants to be, but never letting its Gothic setting drown itin an inescapable mire. On the contrary, we’re constantly aware thatthis is a typical American family who lives upside down and who arehappy in being so even when we gawk and cringe at their oddities.

A good, nay great, movie version to the classic 60s series. Raul Julia isgreat as Gomez, as is Christopher Lloyd as Fester. The story is sound,pretty much better than the sequel. This is a comedy with slightly darkthemes, but that doesn’t mean the family can not enjoy it. BarrySonnenfeldis a genius.

9) Extremely enjoyable update to the old t.v. show retains the eccentricspookiness and oddball humor of old, then proceeds to update the warpedfamily familiarity with a rousing sense of decadent glee. Theunexpectedly classy affair benefits greatly from the amazing castingthat went into choosing all the Addams clan. What is nothing short ofensemble perfection, a sense of fun had by all on set during productionremains undeniably infectious throughout, lending the amusingproceedings a distinct level of class.

Directed by easily digestible Barry Sonnenfeld, The Addams Family maybe a bit intense for young kids but should stay a delight to allothers. A wonderful, gentle perversity that hangs over the entirefamily might have pushed things a little too far to justify this familyfilm to the younger set, but will stay surprisingly balanced with anoutpouring of heart and morality,simply flipped inside out here, forcomedic intent.

Wonderful set and prop design mixed with it's politely warped sense ofhumor would have been enough to make Addams Family the success itbecame, although it was the brilliant casting which continues to upholda credibility for this film. Led by the outstanding (and sadly missed)Raul Julia, nearly every single family member wears their role with anunreal amount of dignity, making the fairly standard plot completelymemorable.

10) This film is very good.The late,great Raul Julia,AnjelicaHuston,andChristopher Lloyd performed well.Even though there is a sequel thisfilmis one of a kind.In My opinion this is a good dark comedy foreverybody!

2):
Uncle fester finds true love (or is it ?) in Debbie, the Addamses’s new babysitter, hired to care for the Addams’ latest addition, Pubert. Debbie has her eye on Fester’s money, but first she has to separate him from the rest of the family, while Wednesday and Pugsley are sent to a summer camp.

3):
Pugsley and Wednesday Addams aren’t very happy with the new addition to the family: their new baby brother, Pubert. Morticia is restless, and Gomez only wants her to be happy, so he tries to fix everyone’s problems by hiring a nanny. The Addams’ finally find the perfect nanny in Debbie: a seemingly innocent woman with an impeccable wardrobe and a way with her hands. She charms the family, especially Uncle Fester, who is head-over-heels for her. However, Wednesday and Pugsley see through her sensual facade: Debbie is only after Fester for his money. Before they can rat on her, she has the kids sent off to summer camp, as she and Fester get married. While she tries (several times) to kill Fester and make it look like an accident, Pugsley and Wednesday must battle ever-cheery camp directors and spoiled rich kids to get back to their family and warn them of Debbie’s plans.

• The baby’s name, Pubert, was the name originally suggested (and rejected) for Pugsley by Charles Addams when he was asked by the producers of "The Addams Family" (1964) to name the hitherto unnamed characters in his cartoons.
• The character of Pubert Addams (a boy) was played by two twin girls, Kaitlyn Hooper and Kristen Hooper.
• Carol Kane, who plays Grandmama, is almost a year younger than Anjelica Huston, who plays her daughter, Morticia Addams.
• David Krumholtz’s character says at one point he has every card for his Serial Killer Card Collections “except Jack the Ripper and that Zodiac Guy.” Jack the Ripper and The Zodiac Killer are the real world’s most famous uncaught serial killers.
• In the TV series, "The Addams Family" (1964), Fester is Morticia’s uncle. In the films, however, Fester is Gomez’s brother.
• Cameo: [Barry Sonnenfeld] Mr. Glicker.
• The book that Joel Glicker (David Krumholtz) is holding when he enters the Harmony Hut only for it to be taken away is Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time”.
• Wednesday bitterly quips that “Chippewa” in Camp Chippewa means “orphan”. This is pure sarcasm; Chippewa is actually a form of the name Ojibwa (a Native American nation), the original meaning of which is unknown.

• Continuity: Becky’s hand goes from one of Wednesday’s shoulders to the other when they’re arguing about hugging.
• Continuity: Debbie is wearing a scarf which disappears and reappears between shots while she is driving.
• Continuity: Wednesday and Pugsly attempt to drop an anvil suspended by a rope on Pubert at the base of the staircase before Debbie removes Pubert from harm. A following shot of the staircase with Gomez and Morticia descending shows the rope is suddenly gone.

• Continuity: When Wednesday, Pugsley, and Joel are refusing to do Gary and Becky’s play, a totem pole can be seen behind the three kids, but in the next shot we see them, the totem pole is gone
• Continuity: When Wenesday and Pugsley are about to use the guillotine when playing with Pubert, Wednesday rolls up her scroll during her line “Justice is served” right when the watermelon is chopped in two. In the next shot, it is back to being unrolled and she rolls it up again during her line: “Bring forward the evil one”.
• Continuity: As Grandmama performs her curse for Debbie, the skull in her hand is facing Debbie. In the next shot the skull is facing Grandmama.
• Continuity: When Debbie is speeding in her Mercedes after Fester and Thing, she nearly rear-ends a Lincoln Continental. In the next scene, she’s driving behind a completely different car and the same Lincoln she was behind can be seen driving the other way down the road, and she nearly hits it head on.
• Audio/visual unsynchronized: When Morticia, Gomez, Grandmama, and Lurch go to see Fester at his new home with Debbie, the maid answers the door. After they ask to talk to Debbie, or Fest, the maid yells “Miss Debbie!” through the house, then there is dialog with the maid but her mouth is not moving.
• Continuity: When baby Pubert is put on the block, his bonnet begins to fall off as Pugsley slides him up. In the next shot, his bonnet is tied firmly on his head.
• Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers): When Wednesday, Pugsley and Joel are in the Harmony Hut for the second time, Gary begins playing The Sound of Music on the VCR. As the soundtrack starts, Joel says “But it’s Disney!” as he becomes engrossed in the film. However, The Sound of Music was released by 20th Century Fox, not Disney.
• Revealing mistakes: In the scene where Gomez goes to the police station to report his brother Fester being held captive by his wife Debbie, the Desk Officer (Nathan Lane) has Sergeant stripes on his uniform sleeves, but a patrolman’s badge (silver) on his shirt. Sergeant’s wear gold badges.
• Continuity: Despite being stitched on as part of his makeover, Gomez’s ginger wig vanishes shorty afterwards.

2) One of my favorite films. Paul Rudnick clearly had a field day writingthisscreenplay.

As odd as it may seem, this sequel is in many ways superior to itspredecessor. The first had to spend much of its time introducing theFamily–and, just as importantly, paying (totally justified) homage toCharles Addams’ brilliant cartoons and to the old television series. As aresult, the plot felt forced, as if it had been the best way the writerscould think of to showcase all the source material. In the end, one leftthetheater feeling that the movie had been ‘about’ the old sight gags. Andthenthere was the totally shameless product placement…but Idigress.

Addams Family Values, on the other hand, gets to be more playful. Becauseweall know who we’re dealing with by now, we don’t have to spend nearly somuch time introducing the family and their skewed universe. Instead, thecharacters get more of a chance to develop as they glide blithely throughafuller, more cohesive story.

Paul Rudnick’s screenplay is masterful–you’ll be quoting from it forweeks.Raul Julia and Anjelica Huston are particularly marvelous as one of themostgenuinely loving, passionate couples you’ve seen in ages. In a weird sortofway.

That dance number! Morticia’s ever-present shaft of light! Christina Riccias the sublime Wednesday! Joan Cusack, unhinged! A split-second cameo byCharles Busch! Oh, rapture. I could go on and on, but I’m running out ofsuperlatives. Suffice it to say that this movie is well worth yourtime.

3) This is a film with several excellent performances, but that of Christina"Wednesday" Ricci is near perfect. The reluctant smile outside the "harmonyhut" is Oscar material. And Christina as Pocahantas is the very definitionof "cute".

Of the others, Joan Cusack also stands out. I doubt anyone else could playthe part of "the black widow" quite as well, with just the right mix ofsleaze and slapstick. Her deranged laughter alone is worth half the rentalfee.

It may not be a classic but it is solid entertainment, with few if any weakpassages. Go and see it!

4) Barry Sonnenfeld (Get Shorty) takes a zany script written by Paul Rudnick(Jeffrey, In and Out) and directs with an exhilarating rhythm to tell thetale of Uncle Fester’s marriage to a suspicious young nanny (Joan Cusack)and its effect on the Addams family.

All the actors are absolutely wonderful but Cusack steals the movie with agleefully nasty turn as the murderous Debbie. Her without-peer comedictalent is more strongly showcased here -watch the scene when Debbie sits ina car waiting for a house to explode- than in her award winning role asKevin Kline’s jilted bride in In and Out. Angelica Huston and Raoul Juliaare magnetic in dramatic roles but they also have sensational comic timingand their Morticia and Gomez make a memorable dark-humored pair, mostnotably in the scenes where the sexual innuendo takes a front-row seat. Peter MacNichol (Ally McBeal) and Christine Baranski (The Ref) have a ballas the irritating summer camp counslers and Christina Ricci will probablynever top her performance as Wednesday.

It’s a guilty pleasure and a fun ride, zipping by in an hour and a half andalso features a hilarious cameo by Peter Graves (Airplane). Check itout!

5) Considering what could have gone wrong with this movie, it’s actuallysurprisingly good. When you think about sequels running in this vein, theyoften have problems. Addams Family Values does not.

The Addams Family was a funny, if not just plain strange, movie, and goodfor its genre. Addams Family Values does the original just as good andperhaps even one better. One very unconventional thing about Addams FamilyValues was that it had a higher rating (PG-13) than the Addams Family (PG),something rarely seen with a sequel. This rating was mostly due to theincreased amount of violence in the movie, including the scene where thecampers roast the annoying counselors over a fire and, of course, Debbie(Joan Cusack) and her homicidal ways.

A black comedy like its predecessor, Addams Family Values is an interestingmovie and very funny. Look for smaller roles by perhaps bigger names thanmost of the regular cast: Nathan Lane as a police officer, David Hyde Pierceas a doctor, Tony Shalhoub as a drunken sailor, and Peter MacNicol andChristine Baranski as the Grangers.

6) It’s a pleasant surprise to see sequel live up to the original. All theactors are great, particularly Raul Julia and Christopher Lloyd. Oh, cannotforget Anjelica Huston. Sequels rarely live up to their predecessor andthat’s what makes this movie so special. Filled with humor, Values ishighlyrecommended for all.

7) This film is one of those rare gems, a sequel that is as good as, or evenbetter than the original.

Christina Ricci fulfills all the promise that she showed in the firstfilm,as she really steals the film from her more established co-stars.

The scenes at camp produce some of the best one-liners, and it is great tosee an American film that is self-mocking about its image concious richsocieties. Lines from Ricci like " Is that your overbite?" and "When theywoke up all their old noses had grown back!" are superb and will be muchloved in the UK, as it is how much of the States is perceived overhere.

Also, Amanda in this movie, is also played by the same girl who played theGirl Scout in the first movie.

Add a little bit of romance between Wednesday and another kid at the campand you have something for everyone in this wonderfully funny andworryinglyendearing movie.

"Addams Family Values" is *finally* a sequel that lives up to theoriginal.I thought this film was just as good as the first film if not better. I amso glad that the original cast decided to come back for the sequel (theonlyoriginal cast member that didn’t was "Grandmama," but she had the smallestrole out of the whole family so it didn’t matter too much). Yet again RaulJulia and Christina Ricci turn in great performances as Gomez andWednesdayAddams, respectively, and Joan Cusack gives a great performance also asthehomicidal Debbie Jillinsky who marries men for their money and then killsthem on their wedding night, but after marrying Fester she just can’t seemto get rid of him. The whole part of the script that dealt with Wednesdayand Pugsley at summer camp was hilarious. And I thought Mercedes McNab asAmanda, who had a cameo as the girl scout in the first film, was hilariousand good in her role. The only thing I found sort of annoying about thismovie was that it centered on Uncle Fester again. But, overall this is agreat sarcastic comedy that lives up to it’s predecessor.

My Verdict: 7/10

9) Almost everybody who was in the original "The Addams Family" returns toreprise their roles in this sequel which is actually better than thefirstfilm. The laughs come at a faster and better pace and Joan Cusack makes adelightfully sinister villain who masquerades as a nanny, marries UncleFester (Christopher Lloyd), and wants to get her hands on the AddamsFamilyriches. It’s up too all of the Addams along with new arrival Baby Puberttostop her. Thing and Cousin Itt are also along for the ride onceagain.

10) The Addams family just got a little stranger with the addition of a newbaby boy. However with the new arrival, Wednesday and Pugsley becomeisolated and try to kill little Pubert. With all this squabbling,Morticia sounds gets tired and seeks help from a nanny. After manyfailures, they settle on the sparky Debbie – although Wednesday has hersuspicions. These suspicions seem to be justified whenever Debbieconvinces Morticia and Gomez to send their children away to a summercamp and then marry Uncle Fester – a man so repulsive that love cannotbe the reason.

Many films wheel out sequels by simply adding something to the originalfilm; often it is a child and often it doesn’t work. However with thisfilm the child is not the focus but a plot device for bringing in ananny who in turn splits the plot. The result is a solid plot thatbasically retreads the mood and humour of the original film which, forfans, is not a bad thing at all. For me I enjoy the dark world of themodern Addams family and felt that the plot did enough to be more thanjust the frame for it. The silly dark humour works well and it producedmany laughs while also achieving a consistent humorous tone. I canunderstand why some people don’t like it because it is the sort ofthing you really need to "get" and I "got" it; also slightly moreuptight parents may not like the examples set their kids in the film(but f**k ‘em if they can’t take a joke).

The cast are a major factor in the humour working. Although Fester isthe focus of the film, Julia is still a real joy and his chemistry withHuston is really enjoyable and they make their lines work well. Lloydis a perfect Fester and he is consistently funny. Cusack makes the mostof her role and she fits in well with the tone of the film. Ricci yetagain steals the film and her deadpan delivery is funny across thewhole film. The support cast have lots of cameos and smaller roles andit is fun without being distracting to watch the faces including Kane,MacNicol, Pierce, Shalhoub, Lane and Sonnenfeld himself.

Overall, if you enjoyed the first film then you’ll like this, and viceversa. Personally I enjoy the darkly comic tone and consistent laughsthat it produced, while the good performances across the board raisethe material and provide some real joys in Julia and Ricci.

• John Astin (the original Gomez) was offered the role of Grandpa Addams.
• In the first two Addams Family movies, Uncle Fester’s relation to the family was changed to be Gomez Addams’ brother. In Addams Family Reunion, as in the original TV series, Fester is a member of Morticia’s side of the family, the Frumps.

2) Poor old Raul Julia would be spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chickenif he could see what had become of the Addams Family series. Along with"Super Mario Bros.", this would undoubtedly be one of the most appallingmajor studio films ever to appear; made for video or not, there’s no excuseto make movies which suck so utterly it’s painful to watch them all the waythrough. When my former housemate borrowed this one evening I watched itlike a rubbernecker gawks at a road accident. An adequate cast strugglesdesperately with an idiotic script playing characters made familiar by otherpeople, far more convincingly: Nicole Fugere couldn’t begin to come close toChristina Ricci’s Wednesday if she lived to be a million. Only Tim Curry hasany sparkle, but he could ham up the phone book and make it work. Turkey,with a capital "T"

3) This movie has basically nothing to recommend it.

The writers bear the heaviest burden for this dog. I’m generally a fan ofTim Curry, Darryl Hannah, and both the Movie and TV(original) "AddamsFamily"shows. This movie was an embarrassment to anything related to the "AddamsFamily"

Tim Curry appears to have been pressed into a bad Raul Juliaimpersonation,rather than allowed to find his own style, Darryl Hannah and and the restjust don’t seem to have been given anything to work with.

And neither have you, the viewer. This movie reeks, but if you’re readingthis, you’ve probably already found that out to your sorrow.

4) I was very frustrated by this video. I am a big fan of both Tim Curry andthe Addams Family. I got the feeling that the people responsible for thevideo were not fans of either the cartoon nor the TV show. Tim Curry’sGomezwas a sore loser quick to start fist fights and not that interested in hiswife. The Gomez we know and love can be drawn to anger but usuallyresolveshis arguments with swords or dueling pistols. And as for Morticia? Well,only mere seconds go by before Gomez is overcome with passion at the verysite of her. In this outing we do not get a "Tish that’s French!" or aquickrun up Morticia’s arms with kisses from her beloved husband. It is likewatching Fred Flinstone but never hearing Yabba Dabba Do. Really, what’sthepoint?

5)

Why is there an Addams FamilyReunion? Why didn’t they juststop at Values and leave itthere?!

This movie is utterly STUPID!!!!! I REST MY CASE! 0 out of10

6) This movie is the worst movie ever to play on my television set. Itscopies should be burned. Tim Curry’s mustache was falling off. DarylHannah’s rendition of Morticia was definitely NOT to die for. Theactors had no idea how to play the parts they were given. They wereeither overly dramatic or had no emotion whatsoever. Even the scenerywas awful! And the script was absolutely repulsive. The plot simplywasn’t there. Overall, bad script, bad lighting, bad portrayals, badprops, even. Don’t see it, no matter the circumstances–it disgracesthe Addams Family name. Try "The Addams Family" or "Addams FamilyValues" instead.

7) The first two Addams Family films were true to the original Addams Familycomics. This film bears no relation to the origional in spirit or concept.It’s a pathetic attempt to cash in on an established and recognizable name.Silly slap-stick.

The Addams Family came out in 91, and it was a huge hit. Then the sequelcame out 2 years later in 93, also being a hit. Now number 3 is out, theAddams Family Reunion, a horrribly stupid bad acted(except for Tim Curry andDaryl Hannah) movie. The plot was stupid, the characters were ALL different.Now I know they had to get rid of the kids from the first two, because asyou can see Wednesday who was played by Christina Ricci in the first two isnow an adult, making movies like Sleeping Hollow. But they could of castedbetter Wednesdays and Pugsleys for the Reunion, I mean these kids could notact at all and everything thy did was stupid. Uncle Fester who in the first2 was played by Christopher LLoyd(and brilliantly may I add), now they havesome hyper active freak who goes around yelling and screaming like a twoyear old doing stupid pranks…It was then that it hit me, this new moviewas not intended to be a sequel to the previous two. It was supposed to be amovie about the new Fox show "THE NEW ADDAMS FAMILY", and no way related tothe old Addams family. This movie was a huge flop and dissapointment and nowonder they decided to put it on video. If they had released it in thetheater it would of made absolutely nothing and they would’ve gone broke.1/5 stars, it was horribly stupid, and I mean HORRIBLY stupid of a movie tomake….

9) We all know that this movie was made for young children. But even childrenshouldn’t have their intelligence insulted like this.. The special affectsdon’t even try. The dialog is worse than cartoons…This film is justplainbad.

10) The third Addams Family installment is an complete and utter insult tothe Addams Family Name. I have no idea what batch of crap the peoplebehind this rubbish were smoking while doing this, but it was certainlyvery strong. It's not at all a genuine Addams Family film, anddefinitely one to forget. It was all just so wrong.

Pretty much of all the actors don't suit their roles. Tim Curry is agood actor, but is better at playing gimpy and swotty roles like hischaracter in Home Alone 2. He made Gomez look like a humble poncy lordbutler in this, it didn't suit him at all. Daryl Hannah tried too hardto be the part but just was too glittery and luscious to suit her role.The guy plays Fester over-does his character even more, but he justlooks like a laughably drugged retard. And others lack the scary creepyGothic characteristic ability-that Christina Ricci, John Workman,etc-had. Their acting generally was forgettable. and they looked quitelike they didn't want to be there.

The plot was lame. The humour hardly helped at all. It was slapstick,stupid, corny and to an extent grotesque. The Addams Family houseitself didn't look very scary and Gothic, and they went to a lot brightpink places. I mean, huh? What the hell…?!….? It was more likeAddams Family in Barbie World or something. They were definitelysmoking something strong to come up with that idea. It was about asGothic and scary as a flower field. It was just WRONG. It's like theCheeky Girls attempting to do a Metallica song. It's seriously thatbadly combined. In fact, all in all, the only genuinely dark thingabout this film is the mere shadow that is it to it's two classicpredecessors.

Me and my friend, against the other friend's will, demanded this offabout halfway through because it was so bad and wrong. Even hardcoreAddam Family fans will probably be insulted by this. This film reallyis a messed up breakfast and lunch together, and a half-done insultingjoke. I think the real excuse for this film was to get money (i.e. cashin on the two previous Addams Family films and thereby robbing peopleof their precious hard-earned money). Don't be the next to suffer thisscam; steer well clear and stick with the other two films and thecartoons.

The film takes place in a conference room where ad execs are trying tocome up with a name for a new business that will sell bedroom, bathroomand other items. Immediately, the viewer will think of the famous Bed,Bath and Beyond chain but in the world these stores don't exist andthey come up with a list of really lousy names. When one does come upwith the name Bed, Bath and Beyond, he is immediately castigated by theboss–though naturally this is the name the client likes.

Nothing great here, but decent acting and direction make this shortworth a look.

2) This was a very amusing short, written and directed by Marshall Cook,who is also featured as an employee in the film. Andy Dick does hisbest to be a greasy ad exec, but he reminded me too much of "MichaelPherett", a greasy Hollywood agent on "The Ben Stiller Show".Intentional or not, Andy did a great job, reminding me of my own boss.(You hate and fear, all at the same time.) The film was to the point,and even though I saw the punchline coming, I enjoyed every minute ofit. Marshall Cook will definitely be someone to watch, in front of thecamera, or behind it. "AdCorp, Inc." was aired in front of "DannyRoane: First Time Director", which paled in comparison to the short.

One of the fascinating things about the film was it's political andanti-feudal aspect. It showed everyone in power to be conceited andhypocritical, abusing the Bushido code for their own purposes, andignoring it when they see fit. It's worth it to note that Imai'sprevious film period, Cruel Story of Bushido, also lambastes the feudalethos. The main character, Ezoki Shinpei, feels compelled to give upeverything he wants to maintain his honor. His alternating bluster andsacrifice come out of confusion and desperation, only leading to ruinfor himself, his family, and the adversary's family as well. Thisbelongs amongst the ranks of Kobayashi's Seppuku, Tanaka's TheBetrayal, and Yamamoto's Tengu-to as films that rate Bushido and thesamurai way as completely useless at best, but closer to evilincarnate.

I mentioned above that Imai is often maligned. I first heard of Imaithrough Anderson and Richie's The Japanese Film, where he was almost aslambasted as Yamamoto Satsuo for being a left wing propagandist (surehis Kome, AKA Rice, comes to mind, as it's basically a remake ofUchida's social realist film Earth, from 1939). But times have changed.There's no longer a cold war, and the old prejudices that seemed soimportant against far left ideologies now seem quaint. Frankly, themore I see of either director the less I can account for propaganda,and the more I see extremely pleasant qualities of fine film-making. Ilook forward to seeing as much of this director's work as I can find.

I bought this film from Kurotokagi.com, and the image quality left abit to be desired (it seems that it's taped off of television, amongthe previous issues), but was still a fine product considering therearen't any other resources for this available (hopefully a DVD will bereleased soon.)

2):
An account of screenwriter Charlie Kaufman’s attempt to adapt Susan Orlean’s non-fiction book The Orchid Thief, which is the story of John Laroche, a plant dealer who clones rare orchids then sells them to collectors. We see the action of the book as we see Kaufman struggle to adapt it into a movie. This is presumably a somewhat true story, as Charlie Kaufman is the real life screenwriter of Adaptation.

3):
Kaufman is struggling with the arduous task of adapting The Orchid Thief, by Susan Orlean, which doesn’t have an obvious dramatic line (it is essentially a book about orchids). At the same time he faces a mid-life crisis, which is worsened by the presence of his twin brother Donald, a less talented but more joyous person than Charlie, who dreams of making a lot of money with screenplays. The movie also shows Susan Orlean as she does her research for the book, and John Laroche, a colorful orchid hunter whom Susan interviews and, later, falls in love with. These stories eventually intertwine, with unpredictable results.

• Based on writer Charlie Kaufman’s struggle to adapt the best-selling book “The Orchid Thief”.
• The credits include Donald Kaufman as the co-writer. He is also featured as a character in the movie, and the movie is dedicated “In loving memory” of Donald (at the end of the credits). But Donald is just a fictional character himself.
• Donald Kaufman was nominated for a Golden Globe with Charlie Kaufman, despite being a fictional character. They were also both nominated for an Academy Award and the Academy made it known that, in the event of a victory, the two brothers would have to share one statue.
• In one scene, Charlie comes home and checks his mail. He is in front of a mirror, and Donald is talking to him behind him. The reflection of Donald in the mirror is actually the real Charlie Kaufman.
• The photographer of the back flap of “The Orchid Thief” is Howard Shur, assistant to director Spike Jonze.
• Susan Orlean was supposed to be in the film as one of two women that Charlie thinks are making fun of him in a supermarket, but this scene was cut before the film made it to theaters.
• Donald suggests Flowers for Algernon (2000) (TV) as an example of a movie about flowers, to which Charlie replies, “It’s not about flowers; besides it’s not a movie.” In fact, the book had been filmed twice – once as Charly (1968) and for television as Flowers for Algernon (2000) (TV).
• The “filmography” link in the DVD includes a page for the fictional Donald Kaufman, listing his works as Adaptation. (2002) and “The Three”. There is a hidden link in the DVD main page. Scroll up from the main set of links and there is a telephone icon which appears, linking to a page with an “Adaptation Answering Machine” phone number, which had an answering machine with a message to leave your comments. Unfortunately, that phone number is no longer active.
• Nicolas Cage’s brother, New York radio personality Marc Coppola, often stood in for one of the Kaufman brothers during the shooting of the movie.
• The flower shown during the time-lapse sequence at the end of the movie is called Amelia (an Osteospermum).
• The character of Robert McKee played by Brian Cox, is a real script guru, Robert McKee.
• Nicolas Cage has said that during the filming of this movie, he ignored all of his acting instincts and played the part of Charlie Kaufman exactly as director Spike Jonze asked him to. He then received an Academy Award nomination for it.
• Nicolas Cage was given completely separate credits for Charlie and Donald Kaufman. The credits were given in order of appearance and each of Nicolas Cage’s credits appeared in the order that Charlie and Donald appeared.
• The book-on-tape, which is playing in the background of the orchid thief’s van as Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper drive, is shown on the dashboard momentarily. It appears to be “‘The Writings of Charles Darwin’, as read by Brian O’Kelley”. There is no such book, no such audio tape. Brian O'Kelley is the assistant director of this movie.
• All the crew members identified in the fictional ‘Behind the scenes’ sequence of Being John Malkovich (1999) are actually the same crew members playing themselves.
• Robert McKee personally suggested Brian Cox to the producers to play him in the movie.
• The tropical fish species that Laroche refers to while riding in the van with Orlean are Anisotremus virginicus, Holacanthus ciliaris, and Chaetadon capistratus or the porkfish, queen angelfish, and foureye butterflyfish respectively.
• A paragraph from Donald Kaufman’s script “The Three” is shown at the very end of the credits. It reads: “We’re all one thing, Lieutenant. That’s what I’ve come to realize. Like cells in a body. ‘Cept we can’t see the body. The way fish can’t see the ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell.” – Cassie from THE THREE
• Weezer recorded an acoustic version of “Happy Together” to be included in the film. However, Spike Jonze felt the original version by The Turtles was a better fit for the film.
• The church mentioned by Amelia at the end of the film is the Sedlec Ossuary located in Kutna Hora, Czech Republic. About 40,000 bones are arranged to form decorations, including chandeliers in the church. This is the same ossuary that Jan Svankmajer filmed for his short film Kostnice (1970).
• To portray John Laroche, Chris Cooper grew out his hair, shed weight and used a prosthesis to create the illusion of a toothless mouth. Director Spike Jonze granted Cooper’s request for numerous takes so he could find the right tone for the eccentric character.

• Continuity: Immediately before Charlie Kaufman has a tantrum in the New York hotel room, the lamp to the right of the bed can be seen leaning against the wall in the corner, but it is standing upright before he knocks it over in the next shot.
• Continuity: At the end of the film when Kaufman pulls out of the parking garage, a woman (Jennifer Porst) sits next to him in the car for a single shot, though he is riding alone.
• Continuity: When Charlie Kaufman is sitting in the coffee shop, the menu jumps about on the table between shots.

• Continuity: During his conversation with Susan at the nursery, Laroche’s assistant’s ponytail appears and disappears over his shoulder between shots
• Continuity: When Susan talks to Laroche in her hotel room, the cord that runs out of her phone is clearly seen. But when the conversation continues as Susan lies on the floor, the cord is gone.
• Continuity: At the cafe, Charlie’s arms/hands jump from the table to his lap between shots.
• Continuity: At breakfast, when Donald, Charlie, and Donald’s girlfriend are in the kitchen, the coffee pot keeps switching sides of the table. Also, none of the characters ever fill up their cups with coffee, but suddenly Donald and his girlfriend have full cups of coffee.
• Revealing mistakes: When the accident involving John, his wife, mother, and uncle occurs, the spring holding on the uncle dummy’s head, can be seen as the car is pushed to the left.
• Revealing mistakes: When Susan talks about Laroche and past orchid hunters, we see one in China being beaten to death. As his attacker stands, he pulls off his fake beard.
• Continuity: When Susan and Laroche are walking through the swamp and Laroche calls Susan a “dumb bitch” she has sunglasses, but in the next shot of her, she has regular glasses.
• Revealing mistakes: When Donald goes through the windshield, you hear the sound of regular glass breaking. You can also see a pane of glass break off the car. Real windshields don’t break like normal glass does. It doesn’t make a shattering noise and doesn’t shatter like window glass.
• Continuity: In the beginning of the film, when LaRoche is trudging through the swamp searching for orchids, he is seen up to his armpits in water. Once out of the water, when the park enforcement officer approaches them, the water line on LaRoche’s shirt is clearly seen as just above the waist – about a foot lower than the point to which he was submerged.
• Continuity: When Susan and her husband are having the dinner party at her home, she excuses herself from the table to go to the bathroom. When she closes the door and slides to the floor to sit, she puts her left hand to her face and her wedding band is on, then it’s not on as she slides to the floor to sit, and then in the next scene when she is sleeping in bed, it’s on again.
• Factual errors: When Charlie Kaufman opens the passenger (right) door of the rental car, we hear a buzzer, warning that the key was left in the ignition. The buzzer should only sound when the driver (left) door is open.
• Continuity: When Charles and Donald talk about the serial killer in the script of “The 3″ being a literature professor, Charles’ hands are clasped. In the close shot of Donald with Charles in the foreground out of focus, his arms are folded.

I don’t think most people understand why he did it.

Throughout the movie, Kaufman’s character keeps stressing how much hedoesn’t want to make a "Hollywood" film. Hollywood-type films have sex,drugs, car chases, and most importantly, characters who succeed in theend. So at a glance, it seems that Kaufman goes against his inner mostdesires regarding the film because he does "hollywoodize" it.

But that is what I find to be the most clever part of his screenplay.To explain my point, try to imagine this-what if Kaufman did not"hollywoodize" his script? If he didn’t do it, Kaufman would not haveadded car chases, sex, and drugs. So in a way, if this were the case,Kaufman would have succeeded. But you see, that is the point. KaufmanDID NOT want his character to succeed in the end. Like he explainedthroughout the movie, "I don’t want to have a film…where characterssucceed in the end." Thus, since Kaufman ultimately fails at hisattempt to adapt Susan Orlean’s book into a screenplay in how heoriginally intended, he delivers a screenplay that is not your normalhollywood film, i.e., a film where the protagonist prevails.

Basically, in order to make his film "un-hollywood," he "hollywoodizes"it. Can nobody see the genius of this?

Anyway, I just thought that I could offer everyone my take on the movieso that you all may perceive Kaufman’s ending in a different light.

2) The first time I saw "Adaptation" I expected something else and walkedaway severely disappointed. As some of you out there who PrivateMessaged me in regards to my initial review posted on IMDb mightalready be aware, I originally gave it a rating of 3.5/5 stars, backwhen I was frequently contributing to the site. I passed on withoutmuch thought, considering it a disappointment and leaving my critiquefor those who cared to read it.

It remains the single comment to have generated the most feedback forme. More than "The Passion of the Christ," and more than yes, even myupsetting review of 2003's "Peter Pan" (which seemed to anger the smalldie-hard fanbase for the film that lurks on these message boards – bythe way, I've had to clarify this sentence by adding "for the film"because someone PM'd me yesterday accusing me of implying I have afanbase on IMDb…no, I am referring to the film's fanbase, so pleasehold off on the accusations). I digress. In summary I gave "Adaptation"a negative rating and to my surprise, perhaps because I avoided totallyslamming the film, the fans responded to me with kind words rather thanharsh ones; conceivably they too had initially taken a dislike to thefilm? I made a daring move. I bought "Adaptation" on DVD for ten bucks,thinking, "I've got nothing to lose." Plus, the front cover looked coolanyway.

I watched it again (after taking into mind several themes andself-referential layers I had failed to visualize before) and was blownaway by the originality and genius of the movie.

My hugest complaint regarding "Adaptation," originally, was its absurdending — I felt it was out of place, silly, and totallyanti-climactic. Little did I realize this was the point — to be aparody of the typical Hollywood blockbuster.

There are so many underlying jokes, gags and self-references that thefilm grows better — like "Back to the Future" — on each new viewing.You're always finding new stuff.

I found new respect for Nicolas Cage as an actor after my secondviewing of this. I have always liked Cage despite the criticism hereceives for being a one-sided actor; here, he proves he's capable ofcreating two very different human beings out of the same mold.Brilliant, Oscar-worthy stuff.

All in all I got it wrong the first time. "Adaptation" isn't a filmthat starts out clever and descends into a messy and stupid finish.Well, actually, it is. But that's the point. I didn't get it before.Now I do.

If you disliked this film, my advice? Watch it again. It knows a bitmore about itself than you probably do. And read up on the messageboards here a bit to get a clearer grasp of what's going on if you'retotally clueless.

P.S. I'd like to thank all the people on this site who messaged me inresponse to my review.

3) John Laroche (an excellent, award-winning Chris Cooper) is a plant lover,specialized in orchids. Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) writes a story about it,and later a book. Charlie Kaufman (the always cool Nicholas Cage) has toadapt the book to a screenplay.

Basicly, that’s the story right there. But this movie comes with so manytwists, it’s hard to catch up.

First of, Susan Orlean and her book really exist. As does Charlie Kaufman(Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine o/t Spotless Mind). In fact, Kaufmanhas written this movie. So Kaufman wrote a movie about Kaufman writing amovie. You get it? Then there’s the fact that all storylines are happeningat the same time (think The Hours). Add to that the twin brother DonaldKaufman, who’s also writing some parts. Or is he…? Does he even exist atall?

The most confusing (and amusing) part is that movie-Kaufman (that’s Cage) istalking about making this movie. He’s telling himself ‘we open with a van onthe highway’ and we’ve actually seen that part. It goes even beyond that,when we hear him talk to his recorder: ‘Charlie Kaufman is talking to hisrecorder’. I loved that part.

But it’s a movie you have to go along with. Kaufman and Jonze trydesperately to be clever and they’ve managed to do so. It’s one of the mostoriginal movies of the last ten years, but I’m sure it’s not for all tastes.If you like Being John Malkovich you should probably give it a gothough.

My score: 8/10.

4) Incredible.

Charlie Kaufman might just be the most genius screenwriter (I daren’t sayever) at the moment.I mean, trying to adapt a book for a screenplay, not succeeding, yet intheprocess writing a screenplay about how you can’t seem to adapt this bookfora screenplay.Oh yeah, and also being helped by your not existing twin brother, andcrediting him as co-writer, and being nominatad for an Oscar togetherwithhim.

Is anyone following this?

Kaufman seems to be the master of destroying the line between reality andfiction.

I kind of have a hard time saying anything about this movie, because Idon’tknow what to say. You should just go and say it. There’s nothing like it.

If you liked Being John Malkovic you wil definitely love this. If youhatedBJM you might still like it. It doesn’t have the absurdity and surrealityofBJM. The story is just incredibly intelligently written.

Even though the movie is about how Kaufman is unable to adapt this book,heactually succeeds in doing just that in the process.

Jesus, I’m still totally stunned.

Jonze does do a very good job once again. But the direction is justoutshined by the story…

5) "Adaptation" is an off-the-wall film with a startling second half.Overall,the film is darkly comic, but viewers get an unexpected dose of movieactionand violence before everything is said and done.

It’s fair to say that there is a fair amount of violence in the film, andeven when you know it’s coming, you’re still caught off guard. SpikeJonzeis merciless in this regard. Some of the scenes are incredibly graphic,infact.

There is a certain adolescent male tone to the film (the violence +sexualfantasy + masturbation). This is partially due to characterization andpartially due to the director’s own aesthetic and perspective. It’s notabad thing, necessarily, either. It just feels as if an unassuming (whitemale) kid who grew up thinking a lot about girls and watching movieswherestuff blowed up made this film… See it and you’ll know what I’msaying.

The script is crazy. Absolutely zany. Akin to "Being John Malkovich"really. Fortunately, this well gives opportunity for Nic Cage, MerylStreep, and Chris Cooper to really be free with their art.

Cage has a difficult role, portraying two very different identical twinbrothers. Cage is at the emotional core of the film. If his performancedoesn’t resonate, the film doesn’t work. I thought Cage was excellent.Andthat the script really gives him some wonderful, challenging material towork with. His first scene with Tilda Swinton (looking gorgeous!) isexcellent.

Meryl Streep…well, what can be said. She’s fantastic. She exudes atiredness and connectedness and hopelessness and sadness, evolving thecharacter brilliantly over the course of the film.

Similarly, Chris Cooper brings a humanity to the role of the OrchadThief,really grounding the narrative and making it all believable. Again, he’sgiven a brilliant opening scene and he works wonders with it.Throughout,he is believably arrogant, lonely, vulnerable, and just plain real.Cooper’s performance is as rich as any other I’ve seen this year; truly,truly sublime.

"Adaptation" is certainly not for everyone. If you’re looking forsomethingstarkly different and simmering with originality, give this film a try,though. Amidst some cloying self-referential clap-trap, there areactuallysome really freshing film moments.

6)

While taking a break from studying for my calculus final (a brain-drainingexercise to say the least), I sat down to write out this review on what was,no doubt about it, a brain-draining movie (in an offbeat but good way). Ofcourse I expected this from `Adaptation’, for last month, in every majormagazine, it has been touted as a mind-twisting ride, which piqued myinterest.

Charlie Kaufman (Nicholas Cage), by his own admission, is a loser. By myviewing, that’s a fairly accurate description-if you add neurotic. Anyhow,Kaufman is a talented screenwriter, who, after writing what is his `scriptof a lifetime’ (`Being John Malkovich), he takes on a project that is overhis head-adapting Susan Orlean’s (Meryl Streep) book, `The Orchid Thief’into an amazing film about flowers that will stun and amazeall.

The plot diverges here. One path follows Kaufman along the road to theinevitable breakdown of writer’s block that forces him to jump from idea toidea in vain attempt to write a screenplay, until he commits the cardinalsin of screenwriting-writing himself into the script. This is not helped inthe least by his hack brother Donald (Nicholas Cage) successfully working onhis own script (a complete antithesis of his own).

The other road follows Orlean as she goes about writing her book threeyears earlier. The book is about a dentally challenged Floridian orchidthief, John Laroche (Chris Cooper), who is personable enough to cause Orleanto fall for him, his drugs, and his outside-the-law lifestyle.

As you might well imagine, this is not your usual Friday-night flick. Thecomplexity of three separate, yet interwoven plots (Laroche the thief,Orlean writing about the thief and Kaufman writing about the writer writingabout the thief) is stunning and the end, for those who will get it (I didnot at first) will blow you away once it hits you…I’ll give you a bit ofhelp in knowing why the ending works later on. Oh, and Charlie (but notDonald) Kaufman, Susan Orlean, and John Laroche are all real people, whichwill make the film infinitely easier to understand.

Nicholas Cage is amazing. To have to carry out the performances of twodifferent characters is certainly a feat, but to do it with such widelydisparate characters like the Kaufmans is really nothing less than wondrous.Not to be outdone, Meryl Streep is superb, especially in the third act ofthe movie when her character becomes a more physical one. As for Cooper,well, I don’t want to insult the guy, but he comes across as a redneck hickand a shyster, which is exactly what the script demanded.

All glory praise and honor for these fine actors would be for naught, hadit not been for director Spike Jonze and writer Charlie Kaufman (see thatname before?). What they have done is simply amazing and is a tribute totheir brilliance. Visually, the film does not stand out much (except for thefast-action evolution sequences that are worth their while). In short, kudosto the entire staff.

I promised earlier to give you some help in figuring out why the endingworks…before I thought of this nugget of info (instead of studyinganti-derivatives), the ending had me confused and slightly angry. The key tothe ending is in the opening credits, in the line `Written by Charlie andDonald Kaufman’. Good luck in comprehending the ending. I give this film myfirst 10 of the year.

7) Jonze and Kaufman have pulled it off again. Witty, surreal, brilliant,inventive, amazing and most of all; the most inspirational film I haveever seen. One of the best and definitive films of the 21st Century.

Nicolas Cage has two parts in this film, Charlie Kaufman and DonaldKaufman, twin brothers. Both screen writers. Charlie is writing ascreenplay based on a book called "The Orchid Thief" {a real book}. Butnothing happens in it. He is finding it hard to stay true to the bookwhen there's no events in the book. Writer's block. Meanwhile, Donaldis storming through his screenplay which is about a serial killer withsplit personalities – a theme regularly used in cinema today. This is atake on how and why there are so many teen horrors with crappy ideas,while films that would appeal to a smaller audience are harder toconjure. During the course of Adaptation. we see Charlie's screenplay"The Orchid Thief" showing as it would if it became a film, featuringthe author; Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) and the books protagonist, JohnLaroche (Chris Cooper).

Charlie Kaufman {the character} is one of the most relatable charactersin cinema for me. He too is looking for inspiration, something to helpachieve his dreams, but he can't seem to find it. He waits forsomething to come and change his life for the good but never takes theopportunity. He worries about the most insignificant things that aren'tlife-changing. But the difference to me and Kaufman, is that he findsthe way. In the end he has learnt his lesson and learnt how to livelife. I am going to take the same advice. His narration gives us a verydetailed guide of his feelings and thoughts.

Nic Cage gives a redeeming performance and one of the best of hiscareer as both Charlie and Donald. They are very differentpersonality-wise, Charlie being nervous and frustrated, while Donald isalmost too upbeat about everything. His chemistry with himself isincredible its hard to believe they are the same. Chris Cooper deliversan Oscar winning performance, and it sure was worthy. Very funcharacter, taking away his seriousness whenever he should be serious.Meryl Streep is also flawless, giving a performance which she shows hermoods appropriate to the scene.

Spike Jonze gives us a very interesting directional view. With a lot oftie-in's with Being John Malkovich (his previous film) to show us hisown little world, where anything can happen. There are also a lot oftie-in's with the film itself in which Kaufman comes up with an ideafor the script in the film, when it actually happens in this film(while his ideas are for "The Orchid Thief"). And, of course, there isthe strange factor in which Charlie Kaufman has included himself in hisscreenplay… and in the film, the character Charlie Kaufman has includedhimself in his own screenplay. It is truly hard to believe how Kaufmancomes up with this stuff.

This may lack the dark style of "Being John Malkovich", but they are inthe same world. Don't miss this moving comedy and hilarious drama. Ican't help but get lost in its wonder.

10/10

A brilliant, original film, hilariously funny almost all the way through,which is why the end seems disjointed and a bit out of sync with the restofthe film…until you consider McKee’s advice to Kaufman, the success ofDonald’s cliched script, and the pressure on Charlie Kaufman (in the film)to finish the script. So it suddenly becomes a thriller, there’s dramaaddedto a genuinely moving story and characters, and it seems to rush towardsitsending unprepared. But that’s the whole postmodern element of the film -isit deliberately bad and pat (like the Player – a much lesser film thatdoesn’t stand up after repeated viewing)?

Anyway, Cage is fantastic in this – really if the Oscars were aboutacting,he should have got it for articulating two characters brilliantly. Afterthemess of Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, it’s some achievement.

A must see – but you need to engage your brain for this!

9) After the phenomenal success of 'Being John Malkovich' in 1999,screenwriter Charlie Kaufman was commissioned to adapt Susan Orlean'snon-fiction novel, "The Orchid Thief," for the screen. However, itdidn't take long for him to realise that Orlean's book was basicallyunfilmable, its sprawling and ponderous story lacking any clearstructure or coherence. After some months of struggling vainly to writea screenplay from the novel, Kaufman's script inexplicably became thestory of a writer's effort to adapt an unadaptable novel. Kaufman'scompleted script was presented to his financial backers with sometrepidation, but they reportedly loved it so much that they decided toabandon the original project and film his screenplay. Spike Jonze, whohad also directed "Being John Malkovich," returned to direct"Adaptation," the quirky, twisting, self-referential film that receivedalmost universal critical acclaim. Much like Federico Fellini's classic1963 film, '8½,' from which Kaufman almost certainly drew inspiration,'Adaptation' tells the story of its own creation.

Nicolas Cage plays Charlie Kaufman, the lonely, insecure and sociallyawkward screenwriter who is hired to adapt "The Orchid Thief," writtenby Susan Orlean, who is portrayed by Meryl Streep. The novel itselfconcerns the story of John Laroche (played by Chris Cooper), a smugplant dealer who was arrested in 1994 for poaching rare orchids in theFakahatchee Strand State Preserve. As Kaufman struggles to write thescript, his troubles are compounded by the presence of his twinbrother, Donald (also played by Nicolas Cage), who is Charlie's exactopposite: reckless, carefree, over-confident and perhaps even a bitdim. The script for 'Adaptation' darts back and forth between differentmoments in time, either chronicling Kaufman's screen writing exploitsor Orlean's experiences in writing her novel. At several points in thestory, more dramatic flashbacks take place: we see Charles Darwin firstpenning his theories of evolution and adaptation, a brief history ofthe grim activity of orchid-hunting, and, in one particularlyimpressive sequence, we are taken back billions of years to thebeginning of life, to trace how Charlie Kaufman came to be here today.

Though purportedly based on a true story, the events of the film arehighly fictionalised, and the story always treads a fine line withreality, with the audience never certain of whether or not an event isreal (in the context of the film) or merely a creation of Charlie's (oreven Donald's) imagination. Charlie Kaufman (the true-life writer, notthe character) often receives most of the accolades for the film, butit is director Spike Jonze who shared the vision to execute"Adaptation" on screen. His approach to film-making is always originaland daring, never tentative of trying something unique for the sake ofthe film, even if it may offend the tastes of an audience that isunaccustomed to anything other than the mundane clichés of the modernmovies that are churned out daily by Hollywood studios. If this wasn'tcompletely obvious after the weird, twisted, fascinating 'Being JohnMalkovich,' then 'Adaptation' put any lingering doubts to rest. Thedirector, who started his career directing music videos, seems to sharea singular understanding with Kaufman the writer, and a mutualagreement on what the film is actually trying to say.

In addition to a clever story, 'Adaptation' contains some of the finestacting of the 2000s, presenting an excellent selection of seasonedtalents at the top of their games. In arguably the greatest role(s) ofhis career, Nicolas Cage is phenomenal as both Charlie and DonaldKaufman, twin brothers whose complete polarity is startlingly evidentin the execution of their respective film scripts. Charlie, whilstwriting his adaptation, is determined to avoid the usual clichés andconstruct a film without any conventional plot, to write a movie"simply about flowers." Donald, however, blissfully oblivious to hisown unoriginality as a writer, churns out a hackneyed psychologicalthriller, entitled 'The 3,' in which the serial killer, his femalehostage and the cop are the very same person. In an ironic twist offate, Donald's trite treatment is hailed as a masterpiece, addingfurther to the inadequacy already being felt by his disillusionedbrother. Cage is excellent, and often absolutely hilarious, as bothcharacters, giving each brother a distinct attitude and personality, sothat it is possible to tell immediately which is which even thoughtheir physical appearance is exactly the same.

Meryl Streep is equally excellent as Susan Orlean, the journalist for"The New Yorker" who researches John Laroche and endeavours to catch aglimpse of the famed and very rare Ghost Orchid, if only to understandwhat it feels like to be passionate about something. Chris Cooperarguably steals the entire show as the charismatic and enigmaticLaroche, whose tragedy-afflicted life is dedicated to masteringnumerous obscure fields (such as orchid-collecting, orfish-collecting), each of which is sporadically cast aside andpermanently forgotten as soon as he feels it's time to move on, to"adapt" to another hobby. From four Academy Award nominations, onlyCooper walked away with a statue. Notably, Charlie Kaufman's screenplaywas also nominated for an Oscar. Since the script was credited to both"Charlie Kaufman and Donald Kaufman," the latter became the onlyentirely fictional person in history to have been nominated for anAcademy Award.

In a nutshell, 'Adaptation' is all about failure. Charlie Kaufman isabsolutely determined to write an original script, without cramming in"sex or guns or car chases or characters learning profound life lessonsor growing or coming to like each other or overcoming obstacles tosucceed in the end." However, after he eventually asks Donald tocomplete the script for him, it descends into exactly that. A visit toa screen-writing seminar by Robert McKee (memorably played by BrianCox) – who is famous for warning strongly against Deus Ex Machina – isused as exactly that. Charlie Kaufman the character fails miserably inwriting his script, but, ironically, Charlie Kaufman the writersucceeds ever so magnificently!

10) Clever. This movie is clever, sometimes stepping over into precious. Butif being overly precious is not high on your list of movie flaws (there areso many others), this movie may appeal to you, as it did to me. If you’reinto semiotics, deconstruction, frame analysis or that kind of thing, thereare some nice little jokes you’ll enjoy.

For anyone who has ever seriously pursued a creative vocation, especiallywriting, this movie will appeal. If you are the kind of person who has goneto expensive seminars, hoping (along with hundreds of others) to transformyour craft or your life, this movie will make you laugh.

It is about a screenwriter who is trying to write something original, in aday and age when everything has been done so many times, even originalityseems to have become clichéd. He has a further problem, which is that hecan’t get out of his own head. And he is neurotic. He is hired by a majormotion picture studio to do something almost impossible: write an adaptationof a non-fiction book about orchids so that it can be a regular Hollywoodfilm. It sounds like a stupid thing for a studio to hire a writer to do,but of course, that’s exactly what the Studio did with this film. Adaptation is based on the work of New Yorker writer, Susan Orlean. She isplayed by Meryl Streep in the movie. The real life Susan Orlean had herscenes cut out of the movie (she also wrote the magazine article, `SurfGirls of Maui,’ on which the film, Blue Crush was based).

While Charlie Kaufman (the screenwriter for Being John Malkovich) struggleswith the increasingly impossible task of finishing a script about weirdosand orchids, his brother, Donald, decides to take up screenwriting. Donaldisn’t writing an adaptation, he’s writing an original screenplay. Charliethinks he knows everything about writing, Donald goes to a screenwritingseminar and posts the teacher’s `Ten Commandments of Screenwriting’ abovehis laptop. Charlie pecks away on some old manual typewriter. We’ve seenit all before: sibling rivalry, identical twins who are opposites, so onand so forth. We think we know the ending, as long as Charlie is writingit. Somehow, despite Charlie’s quest for originality, nothing very originaltranspires. Some folks, at this point in the movie, will understandably getbored to tears. Charlie just gets more neurotic and self-absorbed. Infact, the only thing he can write about is himself, so he writes himselfinto the orchid movie.

I guess things pick up at the end. Someone else has said the characters get`weird.’ While I disliked myself as I fell for the Hollywood-stylemanipulation that the ending appeared to be, still, I woke up and wassquirming in my seat. Charlie attends the writing seminar, and learns to do`research.’ Thus liberated from the plotless constraints of the work he’ssupposed to be adapting, Charlie can write a different kind of movie. Research, apparently, can lead anywhere.

The thing is, I cared – a lot – about the various characters. I liked Johnand Donald best, Susan and Charlie were rather boring and neurotic. Thecontrast drove the movie. Do we all want to be interesting creatures ofHollywood then? Or are we just human beings, adapting to our ownpredictable life circumstances by preferring stories with oomph andcharacters with style? Chris Cooper’s performance as John LaRoche wassomething I’d never seen before on the screen. That’s always a reason tomake a movie. The character and the performance were original, the actorswere in first place all along. The screenplay ultimately served the studio,the actors, the cinematographer, the director and even the prop departmentextraordinarily well…but, perhaps, screenwriters don’t come out looking soheroic.

2) I went to see this film last night. I had no expectations going in toit, other than the fact that I really love Danish films and the actorMads Mikkelsen. The movie really blew me away. The story is told insuch a way that you find yourself laughing in the strangest places, youget really shocked in other places and the communication between thepersons is extreme and wild! The acting from all of the actor’s issuperb!You go out of the movie theater with a smile on you face at thesame time you find yourself reflecting on some of the key questions onlife itself..

Go out and watch it as soon as possible!

3) Inspired by the Book of Job, this movie is set in a rural church withIvan, the church’s vicar, and Adam, a neo-Nazi on social service, asprotagonists. In and around this church, Anders Thomas Jensensunleashes an outright war of good and evil in a story full of blackhumor that leaves the viewer little choice but to laugh tears. OleThestrup as the local doctor beats everybody and everything in terms ofcomic morbidity.

And yet behind all comedy, Adams Æbler discusses much more seriousissues. Is not Ivan’s naive (in danish the perfect anagram: naiv Ivan)denial of evil more dangerous and irresponsible than Adam’s evil, butrealistic attitude? While Ivan suggests as Adam’s project to bake anapple pie, Adam is set out to break Ivans faith in God. The audience isseriously in doubt as to which project will be accomplished and whatcomes after that. In the pursuit of both projects, Ivan and Adam changeplaces and take responsibility in very surprising and strange ways.This story is told with perfect timing and moving gravity realised bygreat actors.

Despite all praise, I have one problem with this movie: I did not getthe pun about the "Adam’s Apple". Why make this play of words withoutmaking use of it in the story? And while I’m at it, the last sceneshould have been left out. Adam becomes … well no, I won’t spoil it.

4) Anders Thomas Jensen has with his earlier films, "De grønne slagtere"and "Blinkende lygter", convinced the audience of his scriptwritingtalents, especially his distinct sense of dark humour. "Adams æbler",clearly a more ambitious project, is now gaining him recognition as adirector with a vision. Apart from merely being amusing and intriguingas a comedy, the film succeeds in communicating a meaningful message tothe audience, while being deep and sufficiently complex in its values.Indeed, the film’s central theme questions our central notion of goodand evil without giving definite conclusions: whether there reallyexist absolute values is eventually left unanswered. Which is better ofthe two: the blindly devoted and fanatically optimistic priest Ivan orthe nihilistic neo-Nazi Adam? Jensen attempts to twist the basicsetting by making Ivan appear rather unsympathetic: while he helpspeople as a priest, he doesn’t seem to do it because of them but ratherbecause of his faith alone. It is often Adam, who notices this, notfailing to observe (almost objecting to) the weaknesses of Ivan’sbehaviour, and yes, it is the cold-hearted, evil Adam who seems to caremore and more as the story goes on.

It is difficult to sum up the whole film with only a couple of words.Mixing biblical allegories, especially the story of Job (the Fall beingalso an essential part of the film, yet not actually in the plotitself), with modern drama and dark comedy, Adams æbler does not fitinto traditional categories. As a comedy, it doesn’t straightforwardlytell what to laugh at, but the humorous is intertwined with absolutelyserious elements. Thus the movie examines the outskirts of comedy andhumour: it encourages the viewer to ponder whether the events arehumorous or not. Even the music doesn’t correspond with the comedygenre at all, but is constantly foreboding and solemn. It is aversatile film, but despite the exceptional blend, it succeeds inkeeping the story together. And it’s a good story.

Characters are well built and well played. Ulrich Thomsen gives perhapshis best performance to date as Adam (challenged only by his role inFesten), and so does Mads Mikkelsen as Ivan. Nicolas Bro, Ali Kazim andPaprika Steen must also be commended for their roles. Bro is akleptomaniac and a drunkard, Kazim plays an immigrant Robin Hood gonebad, and Paprika Steen delivers a steady performance as an unbalancedfuture mother considering abortion. Special mention goes to OleThestrup as the devilishly comical (almost malicious, though we are notquite sure) Dr. Kolberg, who, while joking with his patientsmisfortunes in lovable dialect and showing virtually no respect to anytaboos, fails to demonstrate signs of empathy or other proper humanfeelings. "He’s done for. You could use him as a crapper. Have you hadcoffee?" As to its thematics, the film is utterly uncompromising: inits treatment of today’s starkest evils, it never offers an apology ora clear moral; the final return towards the acceptable, so frequent inthe comedy genre, doesn’t quite occur. Instead, none of the problemsare resolved or even discussed properly – rather, they are laughed at.As in his earlier films and as many of his Danish colleagues have beendoing, Jensen is examining the limits of comedy – how far can one go inmaking fun of sensitive matters such as abuse, rape, violence, racism,disability and so on. Jensen is a provocateur: he discusses uglysubjects with little discretion, avoiding compromises. Like Dr.Kolberg, he wants to talk about things with their real names anddiscuss them as they are. But in addition, the comedy genre allows himto treat these issues openly.

It’s about the battle between good and evil: Ivan sees only the good,Adam only the evil. Ivan tries to make Adam see the good, Adam attemptsto force Ivan into seeing the evil around him. Ivan preaches about thedistinction between good and evil, pointing out how much the modernworld is in confusion with these terms and how much our commonconceptions have changed with time. This is ironical, because the moviequestions the whole distinction: in other words, it questions theconsequences of the fall (not uncommon in Danish lay theology). Whilenot making an actual statement, it points out that good and evil are,at least to a great extent, constructs of society and dependant on thepoint of view. On the other hand, by making Ivan absolutely blind tomisfortunes in his life, it illustrates how it is possible to see goodin everything, and close ones eyes from everything bad.

Adams æbler is a very interesting movie. It entertains, shocks,provokes, and finally, redeems. Whether this redemption is favourableas such, is left to the viewer to judge. All in all, it’s an absolutelysurprising masterwork, one of the rare gems. 8/10.

5) This was a wonderful surprise at the (Cleveland) CIFF, a well-made darkcomedy.

Adam is a neo-Nazi on a sort of Danish "probation for reprobates",where society's sinners are given a gradual re-introduction to publiclife under the guidance of Ivan, a parish minister. Adam needs tonegotiate a "program" for his several weeks stay; despite his effortsat being arch and cynical Ivan takes him totally in seriousness,setting "baking an apple pie" as Adam's goal. A battle of wills ensuesbetween Adam and Ivan, with wonderful comedic support from Gunnar(Nicolas Bro in another wonderful role) the ex-tennis player and Khalid(Ali Kazim) as a not-yet-reformed terrorist.

Everyone is coping here, but the central character is clearly Ivan(perhaps the funniest I've seen Mads Mikkelsen!). He comes across as"Pangloss" with a twist: "everything is for the best" in this worldonly in that the devil conspires to make everything a test of man'sfaith. He is completely deluded yet completely steadfast. This rationalirrationality is perhaps the greatest challenge to Adam; no matter whathe does Ivan retains his faith…to a point where the comedy simply takesanother course.

Not to give away the delight of this comedy's surprises, the characterscope with life, each other, are exasperated and exasperating,consistently inconsistent…the trials of Job are well played out in thisbarely disguised absurdist romp.

6) Having seen all these actors in earlier flicks I thought I knew what Ihad in store. I was wrong. I laughed like silly where one shouldn’tlaugh and enjoyed the movie immensely. It is set in a typical Danishvillage but there is nothing typical about the inhabitants. The priesthas a way with people which even the Bee Gees can’t dilute. The doctorhas this wonderful Danish dialect which all you non-Danish speakingpeople will miss out on, but still he will be very funny to you all.It’s hard to compare this film to any other, but maybe it owessomething to "They Eat Dogs in China". And who would have thought that"A Half Kennedy" is a medical term? If you are only going to see oneNordic movie this decade, don’t miss out on this one!

7) Get ready to laugh, wonder and be amazed by this movie, because this isone of the best danish movies I have ever seen. The weirdness and theobscure acting is just outstanding – The 2 new actors Ali Kazim andNicolas Bro does the job well..

And who would have thought, that mixing comedy and religion could bethat great – Anders Thomas Jensen you have done a fine piece of work.

In this movie you will also see some special effects, and it’s doneperfect – as you can hear, i am devoted to this movie – and I know Ican’t wait until it’s out on DVD, I just have to see it one more time -I have even seen the trailer several times, just to be reminded of someof the funny scenes.. thumbs up 10 times!

Great movie. We saw it one late night not really knowing what to expectbut this was over our expectations. Funny and well written dialouge,great acting and an amazing story! I laughed, almost cried, waschocked, laughed again and got some new tools to handle life with =) Itis what I would call a black comedy in the same way as Blinkande Lyktoror Old men in new cars, both of them great danish movies. What caughtme was the wicked story and how they really make it seem possible. Ican imagine that this has taken place in a small church somewhere onthe danish countryside. The dialouge is great, tons of punchlines thatbubbles up the day after or even weeks after you have seen the film.

9) This film is a masterpiece not less! Anders Thomas Jensen has refinedhis talent through his films, and with Adams Apples it is shining! Iread a review of this film here at IMDb, that was written by someperson complaining about use of same actors, actors playing the sameroles as in former danish films, and by the same Anders Thomas Jensen.It is true that Anders has brought the best of his characters, linesand much more into his next films. At some level we all (sane people)build on our experiences. Some people like to appear as they inventedgunpowder at all times, for some reason. Which is OK. But it iscertainly OK to it Anders’ way too. Any way, if it builds the rightway. Watch the film! You will have a great experience! If you work withfilm, watch and learn! Petter Jahre, Norway.

10) As an ardent devotee of danish film, I place this film on the topshelf. Right next to the best of directors (without further comparison)like Lars Von Trier, Nicolas Winding Refn and Thomas Vinterberg. Ifully believe that this film deserves all ten shining stars. I willrecommend it to everyone who appreciates films with a certain visualand emotional freshness and impact. With "Adams Æbler", Anders ThomasJensen has made his, of my opinion, best movie yet. By far. His Lasttwo movies, especially the first one, "Blinkende luger", was veryentertaining, but this one moves beyond.

With his brilliant authenticity in the character of the troubledreverend, Mads Mikkelsen ("pusher", "bleeder", "blinkende luger", "degrønne slagtere") rises up from just being a good bi-actor, to becominga complete artist of performance. Together with Ulrich Thomsen whoplays the Nazi on re-socialization, he carries the viewers through afresh, shocking, dark, utterly intelligent, and exceptionally bothhumorous and psychological experience.

Being more than rich on nerve-shattering imagery, great performances,and a very well crafted story, this film also leads a sharp edged,underlying parallel to an ancient story that comes to life in the film,and ends in a brilliant paradoxical way. A powerful movie! 10/10