Adaptation by Charlie Kaufman (film dir. by Spike Jonze) is, like the name might imply, about adaptation. Many critics of this script complain that it fails to be truthful to Suzanne Orlean's novel "The Orchid Thief," but I disagree. The first point to make I've already said: it's about adapting a book. There are plenty of references to the orchid thief, and this script is inextricably linked with the book, but the novel, as Kaufman says in the movie "is a beautiful book about flowers... I just want to make a movie about flowers" (not an actual quote, but it's kinda' close to what he says throughout). The script constantly praises the novel, but the movie is really about what it takes to write a screenplay, and is therefore almost more of a creative work than an actual adaptation.
As such, the screenplay is excellent. It is witty, careful, and through many twists and turns, becomes the very item that it claims, maybe even strives, to not be: a product of hollywood. What makes this movie more than a car-chase-sex-scene-drugs-love-insert-archetypical-theme-here kinda' movie is the fact that Kaufman's writing is brilliant. He tastefully inserts every single hollywood cliche from theme song to personal struggle into the film in a way that won't make you puke. Instead of being a lame rehash, adaptation leaves the viewer wondering what it really was that just took place. The story is well-paced, characters are stongly developed, and plot twists don't feel thrown in at the last moment: you feel that this could honestly happen, at least most of the time. While it strays significantly from the orchid thief, the script stands well on its own two legs, slinking through the plot in a way that will grab you before you even realize it--then turns you on your head. Both the book and script are great literary works, but, even with their strong kinship, it's best to view them separately, rather than attack the latter for it's liberal use of the former.