2002, 1 hr 50 min., Rated R for language, sexuality, some drug use and violent images.�Dir: Spike Jonze. Cast: Nicolas Cage (Charlie Kaufman/Donald Kaufman), Meryl Streep (Susan Orlean), Chris Cooper (John Laroche), Tilda Swinton (Valerie), Cara Seymour (Amelia).

If it�s a new Spike Jonze joint, then you know you�re in for a wild ride. So much so, Being John Malkovich was brilliant, but two-thirds of the way through I was worn out. There�s even some nifty use of BJM in the new and exciting Adaptation., starring Nicolas Cage as main character (and the movie�s scriptwriter, as well as BJM) Charlie Kaufman, and also as (fictional) brother Daniel Kaufman.

*Great, one paragraph in and I�ve already confused the entire reading public. Read that again, smarty-pants. Does it make any sense? Couldn�t you just say, �Nic Cage is Charlie Kaufman. Kaufman is the writer of the movie, making himself the character. Cage is also Daniel Kaufman, a made-up brother.� Is that so hard? Dimwit. *

Nic Cage's narrations are spot on, disturbingly familiar to what pops out of my mind. I realized that I've had 3/4 of similar inner monologues as Cage/Kaufman, which either makes me sad or normal, since I�m not entirely sure if Kaufman is to be pitied or celebrated in the movie.

*That's great, Jeff, why don't you just let the readers in on your delusional, lonely little dimension where your synapsis fire blanks? Also, as if it's not lame enough, according to the movie, to have voice over in movies, now you're doing it in a review? Lo-ser, dude. But what's with the period after the title? That just makes it more confusing to put in a sentence for me. Should I just ignore it? Does my using it make me as pretentious?*

Cage�s Charlie is intellectual yet witholding, while Daniel is played as a common sense moron and social butterfly. Charlie is the focus, and Cage plays every scene full-throttal so that we can't tell that Cage is playing both. Charlie is so inept with women, you want to scream out, �Come on, Charlie, kiss her! Take a hint! She wants you!�

*Whatever, Jeff. You're so brave yelling at a character on screen, but you couldn't take a hint if a girl nibbled on your ear and asked you to make her breakfast.*

Cage�s Charlie is sloppy and depressed and focused entirely on his receding hairline, thinking he'd be happier like his naive brother, only he's not so naive, just lets negatives slide past. Charlie also has a healthy fantasy life.

*Oh, admit it, Jeff, you were uncomfortable with some of the dirtier parts. Okay, yes, I admit it, some of it went a little far to make a point.*

Director Jonze does a great job having the Cage characters interact, interrupting each other and moving about between each other so that you can't tell that one is placed in a scene using special effects. The story is more than a "movie within a movie," but a "story within a movie within a story to make a movie."

*Yeah, they know it doesn't make sense, but how can they tell you're just B.S.ing to sound smart? Except for the voice-overs.*

The "story within a story" involves Meryl Streep as a writer of a book called "The Orchid Thief," about the eccentric Chris Cooper, who could very well earn an award or two for his role. Streep is - as always - living a well-to-do lifestyle but *gasp* unhappy, with Cooper's obsessive-compusilve zest for life drawing her to doubt her happiness in life, or lack thereof.

Streep moans her way through most of the film wanting to feel as passionately about something as Cooper does flowers, especially orchids. As Curly (Jack Palance in City Slickers) already told us, the meaning of life is "one thing," being the most important thing to you at the moment.

*At this point, my "thing" was running to the bathroom, which is a drastic development. I hate leaving the theater. Usually I can hold it in for three hours, as I did for Lord of the Rings.*

My favorite piece of dialogue � of which all is impressive - was a narration of Streep describing orchids with personality, then cutting to Cage reading the passage, and relating the orchids to types of women. Masterful stroke of the pen.

The script eventually mixes in at least three different scenarios from the story, ranging from romance to action and digs at the brainless chum Hollywood churns out regularly. But it�s also a dig at the movie itself, proving that, yes, life goes on and there aren�t always resolutions, but that doesn�t mean we can�t have happy �endings� every little while.

*There. I think that gets across what you want, that it was a pleasant and fun movie, with a little something to please everyone. And while it didn�t drum into you a stern moralistic message, it made you think. Thanks for invading my thoughts, and please return to your regularly scheduled life, already in progress. *