Perfume: The Story of a Murderer

good movie

Translate into hindi

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer_360P

I did read the book, during school, many years ago not long after it was published. I liked it, but certainly not loved it. What made the so-so story a bestseller is the marvellous way Suskind wrote it. So to make it work as a film or play, it has to be told admirably as well. Therefore, can anyone please explain to me why this was just the thing they blatantly forgot to do? I really can't remember hearing such cringe worthy, laughable and clichéd lines of dialog in a profoundly wooden, almost satirical acting-style ever before. And then, of course, there is the seemingly endless narration by the poor and unfortunate Mr. Hurt who must have been staring a lot at his pay-check while getting the childish, embarrassment-inducing narratives onto the audio-tape. And if that wasn't enough to completely ruin any enjoyment to get out of this unconvincing motion-picture, they made it overly long. It really outstayed it's welcome on the screen and none of the fellow moviegoers around me in the theatre did their best to conceal their annoyance with his. People started talking, some of them left and others did both. I really wish I had done the same and just save the evening by conveying my disappointment in some bar over a stiff drink or two. I think this story could have been put to film graciously, maybe in an animated movie where something like scent can be depicted without having to do unimaginative close-ups of a sniffing nose. Something with colours perhaps? or nicely rendered fumes? just a humble thought movie makers. I know Kubrick passed on the opportunity, but if even Tim Burton turns down any involvement in making this movie (he must have had his reasons but he is, in my opinion, the one guy who could swing the right approach) they should have just let it slide altogether. Although adequately shot, a total failure storytelling-wise. 3/10

While I truly disliked this film, I can't give it a score of 1 simply because the music was so lovely and so much of the production was well done--such as the narration and cinematography (when, at least, it isn't focused on close ups of vomiting and filth). In other words, while I found the story itself utterly repellent, the people who made this film obviously were talented and crafted an amazing tale out of an incredibly nihilistic and sick premise. And, because there were so many revolting aspects to the film, I certainly could not recommend it. This film has already been reviewed by a bazillion people, so reprising the story isn't necessary--for that, read some of the other reviews. Instead, I want to talk about what I hated about this tale. I have a bit of a bias and I should point this out before I continue. I don't like films about serial killers or murder, so the fact that I disliked this film so much isn't a huge surprise. What was a surprise to me is that one of my co-workers actually thought I'd like this film and suggested I watch it. If I'd known what it was about, I am sure I wouldn't have even bothered. Much of this is because a long time ago, I made my living attempting to do therapy with murderers and rapists. It was all probably just a waste of time and since then I just don't want to hear about this sort of crap--I've seen and heard enough and don't find it interesting--just repellent. For me, life is just too short to immerse myself in evil. Been there, done that. The bottom line is that PERFUME is a very dehumanizing a movie. People are murdered for our entertainment. While the killings are not super-graphic, there is a gentle fairy tale quality about this that seems to excuse or at least trivialize this horror. Had anyone watched this movie who has lost family members to murder, I wonder just how "entertaining" this all would have been?! Tons of nudity (none of which is sexy--much of which seems sick and sad), scenes of people vomiting (in closeup), extreme violence, abuse of corpses--this movie seems to have it all. Frankly, had I LIKED this film, I would have worried. Instead, it was a chore to finish and I won't recommend it to anyone.

This a fictional, quasi-historical film beginning with the hero's hanging, then an outdoor fish market close-up birth scene where his evil mother drops him newborn into the mud and abandons him. For this Mom is hung and he is placed in an orphanage that makes Fagin's look inviting (his new brethren try to smother the baby). He is some sort of idiot-savant whose talent is being able to identify any odor. Next young Osmond is off to Paris where he catches a whiff of his first lady-love, who he runs down and strangles, and strips her while sniffing the corpse. There are lots more naked corpses (I think 12), the magic number he needs to scrape their odor-essences into a single potion that, when a drop is hoisted aloft on a handkerchief, causes the whole town instantly to disrobe and begin an orgy that makes Woodstock look sedate. The photography, both gross and beautiful, is very good. The music is excellent. The acting and direction are top-notch. But, to quote Luther as he debated Erasmus, the content is dung borne in a silver vessel. What is most disturbing is that the packaging has seduced anyone, other than Charles Manson and his girls, into thinking this movie is either Art or Romantic. Females under 18 rate this movie the highest (8.2); same with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (9.4). Why would young women want to see women like themselves murdered by a psychopath? Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

This is an art movie with an ending that will puzzle many. As of this writing (January 5), this movie has not yet been seen by many Americans. It has however, based largely on its European release, garnered a user rating of 7.4 already; a quite good rating. It was undoubtedly the right decision to have it open in Europe first. Assuming that Americans probably won't be able to appreciate it as much as us Old Worlders, the user rating will probably go down once a few thousand Americans have rated it here. But let me try to prevent that from happening by explaining what the movie is about. The ending is really what makes the movie (or breaks it, for those who don't see the beauty of it). It becomes clear then that what Grenouille was trying to do was create a physical distillate of love. Not sex. Not beauty. Love. And he did it. He created the perfect feeling of love, both emotional and physical; a love encompassing perfect eroticism (not just emotionless sex). And in the end, he did what lovers do: he joined with other people. Yes, they absorbed him entirely, meaning that he became part of them, just as a person in love wishes to become part of his or her lover. But HE represented the very *concept* of love, and his physical absorption by the common people represents their ultimate adoption and understanding of that concept. Of course, this is an art movie and everything in it is symbolical. It amounts to a description of what love is and how it works. The movie is saying that love is something real which *can* be defined and understood, and the ultimate consequence of such understanding is that people join with each other (emotionally and sexually). Even if they are strangers. Because everybody is capable of feeling love, and one day maybe everybody will. It's a beautiful movie. When I left the theater I hadn't pieced everything together yet, and thought I'd rate it an 8 out of 10. But having slept on it, I realized it was a perfect movie. Hence, I must give it a 10 out of 10.

I will begin this by stating that my sister sent this to me as a carefully bubble wrapped punishment. For what I'm still not sure but I will definitely never cross her again. Of course she tried to warn me and the fact that it took her 4 hours to watch it should have been telling. It was in a word: atrocious. One of the most visually stunning pieces of garbage I have ever set eyes on, literally. While points are clearly scored for originality, costume and set design the beginning & ending scenes were nothing short of vomit inducing albeit for different reasons. Born in truly putrid conditions - Female Trouble birth scene easily comes to mind only this time super-sized with maggots, rotting meat and fish heads - Guillotine (or whatever his name was) was not meant for this world and the gift that signaled his existence and his mother's douche-baggery would ultimately be his undoing, a tragic flaw indeed of Shakespearean proportions no doubt. Everything he touches dies, everyone is dirty/funky looking and Dustin Hoffman has seen better days and scripts. He can smell through glass containers, in crowds and over great distances with visuals no less. He also leaves dead naked virginal sinead o'connor look-a-likes in his wake. I was not entirely certain if this was a joke until I read some of the reviews on this site and realized there are people out there who dug this mess. Surely nothing this silly should take itself so seriously but alas I was wrong because it did and was somehow able to convince a large portion of the viewing public. Now that was some mighty powerful juice...I have seen much much worse (R.O.T.O.R. anyone?) that's for sure but nothing quite like this. I was rendered speechless by the orgy scene and wanted to destroy my DVD player and possibly myself when he finally made it "home". Simply put: avoid like the plague - beware of random dingy homeless looking street urchins with bags of animal fat that only want to "capture your scent". They might just brew up a mind-numbingly awful film * their essence on you and force you to pronounce it an innocent dirty angel, get naked have monkey sex with a nasty stranger and write it a glowing review.

I stumbled upon 'Perfume' while travelling round Europe last month. At the time I'd never heard of Suskind's novel, let alone the film adaptation and as a result, I entered the cinema without any preconceptions of what to expect. I was staggered. I cannot think of a film I've seen that is as cringe-worthy, nauseating and ultimately, as ridiculous or as embarrassing as this awful, awful waste of 50 million euros. First, the positives (and there are precious few). The film is indeed beautifully shot. Medieval Paris is impressively realised and you really do get a sense of the grimy underbelly of the city that Grenouille inhabits. In addition, the second half of the film when the murders are taking place is undeniably tense as a cinematic experience. However, by this stage all credibility has already been lost as a result of the lumpen and unconvincing script and the appallingly nauseous narration, which is representative of the general feel of the film as a whole. Think 'Chocolat' at its most sickly, with Juliette Binoche stirring a hot pot in slow motion to a lush orchestral background. However, while that film just about saved itself from teetering into the realms of the ridiculous, 'Perfume' plummets into the abyss like a suicidal elephant, lacking any sense of subtlety, finesse or restraint. Hoffman's 'paradise rose garden' scene after smelling Grenouille's first creation should be consigned to the film-making skip permanently. Nobody should be forced to see that. Surely it can't get any worse I thought. I was wrong. The execution/orgy scene must count as one of the most unbelievable and embarrassing in cinema history, so much so that I actually felt sorry for Alan Rickman, as though his career was disappearing before my very eyes. Stumbling on from there we reach the ending, with Grenouille being crushed to death by a mob of filthy peasants acting for the first time "out of love". No decrease in the cringe factor, no less embarrassing. Independent film makers struggling for funds for their projects will only look on in despair. A woeful mistake of a film, it has to be seen to be believed.

If I could give this film a minus rating, I would've. A lot of people like to watch films that simply don't work and put them down to being artistic, creative and unusual. No... Those films are artistic, creative and unusual. This film, on the contrary is absolutely ridiculous. i can see why this may have worked in the book, but I don't know where it got lost in film.. Perhaps it was the terrible screen play, the terrible acting, the gnaff narration, the kitch costuming, the overtly apparent and insulting use of lighting or the fact that the biggest emotional response it could pull from any audience was a grimace in confusion; it just doesn't work. At All. Some stories are too big for film, and this was one of them. i doubt I was alone in thinking as I walked out the cinema how on earth the films makers got enough people to think it was a good idea to produce this. Once again, Holly wood tries to do something it simply can't. In the opening blurb to this film on this very site, it suggests that Stanley Kubrick; whom has never shyed away from the 'impossible' film claimed that this very story was 'unfilmable' Jeez. He was certainly right. Go see it if you've run out of acid to pour into your eyes.