Adaptation.
2002 · 115 min · Director: Spike Jonze, Spike Jonze
Show plot summary (may contain spoilers)
While his latest movie Being John Malkovich (1999) is in production, screenwriter Charlie Kaufman is hired by Valerie Thomas to adapt Susan Orlean's non-fiction book "The Orchid Thief" for the screen. Thomas bought the movie rights before Orlean wrote the book, when it was only an article in The New Yorker. The book details the story of rare orchid hunter John Laroche, whose passion for orchids and horticulture made Orlean discover passion and beauty for the first time in her life. Charlie wants to be faithful to the book in his adaptation, but despite Laroche himself being an interesting character in his own right, Charlie is having difficulty finding enough material in Laroche to fill a movie, while equally not having enough to say cinematically about the beauty of orchids. At the same time, Charlie is going through other issues in his life. His insecurity as a person doesn't allow him to act upon his feelings for Amelia Kavan, who is interested in him as a man. And Charlie's twin brother, pretentious Donald, has moved into his house with a goal of also becoming a screenwriter. Despite not admiring Donald as a screenwriter, Charlie asks for his advice. Together, they feel that there is some interesting subtext in the book on which Orlean herself can only elaborate, if only Charlie has the nerve to talk to her. If she can't or won't elaborate, they may have to find out the meaning of that subtext on their own.
Your viewing check-in
Emotional fingerprint
Adaptation. (2002) — Movie. Top emotional signals: Confusion 28%, Humor 22%, Curiosity 20%. Source: AI estimate. Shares describe emotional signal, not percentages of people. Your experience may differ. How we measure
AI estimate · no viewer votes yet
How we measure
AI estimate
Share of emotional signal, not the percentage of people or a probability of enjoyment.
Each viewer contributes one response, split equally across their selected emotions. When available, an automated estimate supplies a prior that is blended with those responses. Counts include distinct viewers, not automated estimates or archived anonymous votes. Fewer than 3 viewers is an early estimate; more responses do not guarantee certainty.
Why it feels this way
The strongest emotional signals are Confusion, Humor, Curiosity. Genres: Comedy, Drama. AI estimate.
Is it worth watching?
Consider this title if you are looking for Confusion, Humor and Curiosity. Its IMDb rating of 7.6/10 suggests a generally positive audience reception. For these leading emotions, its Feel Score is 72/100.
How did it make you feel?
Votes are saved to the fingerprint once you’re signed in.
Pick up to three · 0/3
Emotional journey
- Sadness
- Tension
- Hope
Not enough subtitle evidence
No dominant emotion
Dominant emotion: Humor
Dominant emotion: Curiosity
Dominant emotion: Sadness
Dominant emotion: Hope
Dominant emotion: Tension
Dominant emotion
| % | Approximate minute | Dominant emotion | Overall intensity | Sadness | Tension | Hope |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.5 % | ≈ 3′ | Humor | 43 % | 22 % | 23 % | 7 % |
| 7.5 % | ≈ 9′ | Curiosity | 41 % | 13 % | 18 % | 9 % |
| 12.5 % | ≈ 14′ | Humor | 40 % | 13 % | 18 % | 11 % |
| 17.5 % | ≈ 20′ | Humor | 43 % | 20 % | 16 % | 15 % |
| 22.5 % | ≈ 26′ | Curiosity | 46 % | 19 % | 10 % | 16 % |
| 27.5 % | ≈ 32′ | Humor | 45 % | 15 % | 9 % | 14 % |
| 32.5 % | ≈ 37′ | Humor | 43 % | 20 % | 11 % | 14 % |
| 37.5 % | ≈ 43′ | Humor | 44 % | 26 % | 19 % | 14 % |
| 42.5 % | ≈ 49′ | Humor | 45 % | 30 % | 25 % | 14 % |
| 47.5 % | ≈ 55′ | Sadness | 48 % | 36 % | 27 % | 14 % |
| 52.5 % | ≈ 60′ | Sadness | 54 % | 41 % | 39 % | 9 % |
| 57.5 % | ≈ 66′ | Sadness | 55 % | 36 % | 43 % | 13 % |
| 62.5 % | ≈ 72′ | Hope | 50 % | 26 % | 33 % | 21 % |
| 67.5 % | ≈ 78′ | Curiosity | 49 % | 28 % | 26 % | 19 % |
| 72.5 % | ≈ 83′ | Curiosity | 55 % | 26 % | 34 % | 15 % |
| 77.5 % | ≈ 89′ | Tension | 68 % | 19 % | 57 % | 19 % |
| 82.5 % | ≈ 95′ | Tension | 81 % | 36 % | 79 % | 23 % |
| 87.5 % | ≈ 101′ | Tension | 86 % | 64 % | 76 % | 23 % |
| 92.5 % | ≈ 106′ | Sadness | 76 % | 54 % | 45 % | 35 % |
| 97.5 % | ≈ 112′ | Hope | 65 % | 25 % | 15 % | 52 % |
Riches to rags
Rags to riches: The emotional tone rises from negative to positive.
Riches to rags: The emotional tone falls from positive to negative.
Man in a hole: The tone falls, then recovers.
Icarus: The tone rises, then falls.
Cinderella: The tone rises, falls, then rises again.
Oedipus: The tone falls, rises, then falls again.
AI reading of the film’s English subtitles (dialogue and sound cues) — not viewer votes. How we measure ↗
Kadri — your film companion
AIAsk anything about Adaptation.. From the film’s own dialogue and FeelDB data, at your spoiler level.
Kadri
Hi, I’m Kadri. Ask me anything about Adaptation. — I’ll stay inside your spoiler line.
Premise onlyAfterward Reveal viewer responses · may contain spoilers
Viewer responses about feelings after the title ended, separate from feelings while watching. No AI estimates.
0 responses so far
Feeling details appear after at least 3 viewers respond, to protect privacy.
Cast
Randy
Orlean Dinner Guest
Orlean Dinner Guest
Orlean Dinner Guest
Orlean Dinner Guest
Orlean Dinner Guest
Details
- Directed by
- Spike Jonze, Spike Jonze
- Written by
- Charlie Kaufman, Susan Orlean
- Type
- Movies
- Released
- 2002
- Runtime
- 115 min
- Country
- United States
- Ratings
- Feels mostly
- Confusion
- Data updated
Where to watch
Subscription
Rent
Feels similar
More like this →Emotion overlap shows mood similarity, not a prediction of enjoyment.




