Add a Review

  • With "The Perfume" it's like with any blockbuster movie: if the critics praise it, it's horrible - if the critics hate it, it's brilliant.

    I had the chance to watch a preview of "The Perfume" tonight and I was very surprised: this movie is really good! Okay, it can't actually make you smell all the scents and odours, but the images and the music allow you to experience the atmosphere and the emotions Grenouille is feeling when he takes in the scents of his environment. You couldn't have done this much better without the use of real scents at theatres.

    Although much of the story is told by a narrative voice (mostly quotes from the novel), the movie is still thrilling and exciting all the way. It's a very good adaption of Süskind's novel, sticking to the original plot concerning the major events, leaving away unnecessary subplots (although it's a pity that funny "lethal gas"-plot was cut out!) and shortening long passages. The result is well-constructed movie that is worth seeing.

    The actors, especially Whishaw who plays Grenouille, have done a very good job. Like in the novel, Grenouille is an ambivalent character and you never know whether to love him for his genius talent or to hate him for his cruel murders. Whishaw's half-crazy, scary gaze made me shiver. Dustin Hoffman as old and unsuccessful parfumeur Baldini was very convincing... I loved the way he talks to Grenouille arrogantly although he recognizes how much more talent the young man has. Baldini is always good for a laugh.

    The only thing to criticize is that the movie is not as brutal as the novel. I think they wanted to avoid the FSK 16 rating and so didn't show much violence, which in my opinion would have been necessary if you wanted the movie to have the same shocking impact on the audience as the novel. For example I was really shocked by the end of the novel - in the movie you hardly see what happens.

    However, it's really a thrilling story visualized excellently - go to the movies and watch "The Perfume"! You won't be disappointed.
  • SnoopyStyle29 September 2014
    The movie opens with Jean-Baptiste Grenouille (Ben Whishaw) being sentenced to a gruesome punishment during the 18th century cheered on lustily by the crowd. He was born in the putrid 1738 Paris fish market, found in the pile of fish guts, and his mother sent to the gallows. He's put in the overcrowded orphanage where the other kids immediately try to kill him. He unnerves the other kids with his strange superior ability to smell. He is sold to the tannery at the age of 13. When he grows older, he is entranced by the smells of the city and the smell of the Plum Girl. He accidentally kills her leaving him with a desire to preserve the intoxicating scent of the girl. While delivering leather, he impresses perfumer Giuseppe Baldini (Dustin Hoffman) who is now too old and out of touch. So much so that Baldini purchases the young man. Grenouille is obsessed with a way to replicate. Baldini tells him of the mysterious art of enfleurage found in Grasse. While walking on a country road, he is overtaken by the smell of Laura (Rachel Hurd-Wood). Her father is Antoine Richis (Alan Rickman).

    This would be a great movie for smell-o-vision. The style is doing the next best thing. It is grungy, dark and ugly. The ugliness pushes the senses of the audience. Ben Whishaw is wonderfully creepy. He does a scary stone-faced intensity. His character is isolated. He's obsessed. This is the essence of the movie. It's about his obsession and his amoral pursuit of it. He brings no judgment to his life other than to satisfying the obsession. I would say the movie has a sexual sense if not for the fact that it is done in such a gruesome manner. This is a movie unlike most others. This movie is deliciously horrible.
  • I don't understand people who say this movie is dull, boring or bad. I guess these people are only into mindless action-movies with simple dialog where people get slaughtered in a brutal and visually gory way. If you have a mind and you are able to think, this movie maybe something for you. The characters in the movie are strong, you sympathize with them easily. It is upsetting why the main character is killing the girls, as it is actually unnecessary. The sceneries and costumes look great. I felt like I was there. The movie shows moderate violence, which is all just suggestive, you don't see any blood. I give this movie 8 points. It is a good movie, which I'd recommend to my friends.
  • wow, a serial-killer movie WITHOUT blood and action and wild chase sequences and stuff like this.

    People who are used to fast Hollywood Movies certainly won't be satisfied with this movie. It's really unusual, as the novel is. It's generally difficult to convey something like a SMELL in a book or a movie, and it's also difficult to create a satisfying adaption of a novel. So my personal opinion is that The Parfume Movie is one of the few good adaptations, because it eagerly tries to convey the complicated world of smells and the world of Grenouille and also achieves it in many ways. There are of course some parts missing or changed if you compare novel and movie, but that is always the case with adaptations.

    I saw the movie one hour ago and have just read some comments. Some of them are "disappointed" or "boooring", but most of these opinions are really not well founded, so I couldn't make out what EXACTLY was so boring and disappointing... However, I'll keep on dwelling in the magic of the movie, looking forward to other more positive comments...
  • Spinelli_8614 September 2006
    To my dismay this movie has been accused of dealing with the addressed subjects only on the surface and just trying to shock the audience with extreme imagery. I strongly have to disagree with that. "Das Parfum" may be a lot of things but shocking sure isn't one of them. Of course it is visually overwhelming and not only with pictures of pretty flowers and sounds of the wind softly shaking the trees on a warm summer night but what is this movie, if not a piece about the sensuality of the human being? Yes, it is about smells but smelling is just simply not one of the things you can experience while sitting in a movie theatre. This motion picture however comes very close to it. We see close-ups on maggots crawling around and fish getting their heads chopped of but also human bodies in all their perfection and people declaring their honest love for one another. It might be impossible to make the audience fully understand the world in which Jean-Baptiste Grenouille lives but it does manage to create a similar vibe that brings us close to what Grenouille "feels" when he smells. Tom Tykwer beautifully achieves to always put the audience in the right mood, with the help of an amazing soundtrack and great camera work.

    One could criticize that Ben Wishaw is too good looking for the part but we have to keep in mind that this story is supposed to be about the character of Grenouille and the way he himself sees his live. Since to him, the smell is the soul of every being, his appearance does not matter to him. So we might as well thank Tom Tykwer for casting an actor who is pretty decent to look at for two and half hours.

    Please watch this movie without any prejudices. Open your mind to images and sounds and try to imagine what your feeling could "smell" like. And even if that does not work you can still just enjoy a beautifully told story. Either way, you will be touched.
  • I'd only heard bad things about this movie in advance and I hadn't been too impressed with the trailer - I thought the actor playing Grenouille was too pretty, giving his behavior an almost sensual feel, which it definitely shouldn't have. However, when I had the chance to see a press showing of it, I knew I had to see it because Süskind's book was one of the highlights of my school career. I was pleasantly surprised - the movie is well done, beautifully filmed (I especially enjoyed the period details that always felt very down-to-earth and alive), and the main character was never attractive and actually quite creepy (although in my mind, Grenouille will probably always more resemble a Gollum-like creature).

    Putting scent into images, however, is even more difficult than putting them into words, in my opinion, and this is where the movie lacked. It just did not grip me the way the book had, did not pull me into this world of smells, and after 2 hours I started getting impatient for the story to finally move on and wrap up. All in all I think the movie could have been better, but it was definitely better than I'd feared and is well worth a look.
  • jeanbal21 October 2006
    In this colourful and gripping film, you can literally "smell" the pictures. Sometimes they are captivating, sometimes awful, but they are always fascinating. A great, great movie about sensuality, desire, greed... and the quest for love. Wonderful cast (even Hoffman is excellent!), wonderful music (and the score is not "too" present, which is a good thing), wonderful direction. 2 and a half hours may seem a long time for some, but not for the real sensualists. The story and the film may have their flaws, but they also have outstanding qualities and in a perfect world Tom Tykwer should receive an award for his superb adaptation of the splendid book by Patrick Süsskind.

    A must see. Or, should I say, a must "smell"!
  • The book impressed me by the choices made.

    Writers are confronted with special challenges, how to balance a connection with reality with adventurous imagination — reality in the sense of visceral experience and emotional relevance; imagination in terms of insight, novelty, even growth. Its got to be one of the most daunting challenges in life because there are few excuses for limiting scope and ambition as you have in most other arts.

    Susskind's solution worked. So while I wandered through the book, being engaged and teased, I also was able to look at it as the hero looks at the world, dissecting its components and understanding its miraculous composition. It is in a growing trend of stories that are cast in a deviant, savant or psychic consciousness. Ten years or so earlier we had "Smilla's Sense of Snow," which cast the world (Iceland) first in terms of the character of the snow and ice in it, and everything against that metaphoric ontology. This follows in that path, more pure and direct in smell, and yet less abstract because we all do have this sense.

    When you do this, you have to have a crescendo of the effect. So for the books where character is insane in some way, the insanity needs to increase, but in unexpected ways. Each ratchet has to engage, each pearl in the string being novel enough from the last that we have to leave. What Perfume does is slowly ratchet towards a more magical world. As the perfume and the skills increase in our character, the world changes from deliberately brutal to accidentally motivated with apparent magic.

    So the book was magical. Tom Twyker knows all about this. He channelled Kieslowski in "Heaven" which was one of the best films ever: he delicately managed much the same balance as Susskind, including the relationship to the land you get in his novel. So I was prepared for a transcendental movie experience. Oh, and redheads, something that has become a universal cinematic shorthand.

    Alas, Twyker must have had too many backers with too much money at risk to allow him to make a real film. Instead we get a filmed staging of the events in the book, as if they mattered. As if they were the soul of the thing.

    We do get some wonderful images: a few wonderful images with two redheads as the bookends of murders. Two of these will live long in my dreameye. The first is the exploration of the newly expired but still effluent plum-girl. The second is the focused recognition of fate in Laura, the source of ultimate innocence in the scent around which the world is spun.

    In the book these girls are on the cusp of pubescence. No such notion here.

    In general, the film is a grind. Tom, come back. Smell.

    Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
  • claudio_carvalho10 September 2012
    Warning: Spoilers
    In the Eighteenth Century, in France, Jean-Baptiste Grenouille is born in the dirtiness of a fish market in Orleans and abandoned by his mother. He is raised in an orphanage and develops an extraordinary sense of smell. He is sold by the responsible for the orphanage to a tanner and he becomes an apprentice.

    One day, Jean-Baptiste Grenouille (Ben Whishaw) goes to Paris for a delivery and he learns new odors. He is attracted by the scent of a red haired teenager and follows her. When the girl startles with Grenouille sniffing her, he unintentionally kills her by suffocation after covering her mouth for a long time.

    When Grenouille delivers a skin to Giuseppe Baldini (Dustin Hoffman) that owns a decadent perfume shop, he convinces the Italian to hire him to create new aromas for him. In return, he asks Baldini to teach him the names of the substances and how to preserve the scents. Baldini explains that the perfumes are the combination of twelve fragrances, but there is an unknown thirteenth scent that was found in an Egyptian tomb that caused rapture in those that had smelled it.

    Grenouille is frustrated when he finds that Baldini is not able to teach him how to preserve the scent of everything, and he moves to Grasse expecting to create the perfect perfume. He also discovers that his body is odorless. When he sees the gorgeous Laura Richis (Rachel Hurd-Wood), who is the daughter of the noble Antoine Richis (Alan Rickman), he believes that she is special. He develops a method using fat to preserve the scent and begins his killing spree of young women. The population is afraid of the notorious murderer and Antoine believes that his daughter might be his next victim. Will Grenouille find his aimed perfection?

    "Perfume: The Story of a Murderer" is a very weird movie, with an original story of a man seeking out the perfect perfume and becoming a serial-killer in his quest. My daughter read the novel and watched the movie later and she liked a lot this film. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to read the novel before to fully understand the conclusion, when Grenouille is devoured by the crowd. Last, fortunately movie theaters and televisions do not have odors yet. My vote is seven.

    Title (Brazil): "Perfume - A História de um Assassino" ("Perfume: The Story of a Murderer")
  • It was a masterful achievement bringing the concepts of scent in to a book, bringing it to the large screen has even more challenges, which I believe was superbly overcome in this film. The film is narrated to ensure the audience understands some of the concepts and some parts of the plot were "dumbed-down" to make sure the audience got the point.

    Unfortunately, much of the book had to be skipped in the interest of time – much of Grenouille's childhood is glossed over and the bit after the cave visit is completely omitted.

    Despite this, the atmospheric sets and brilliant acting (with the exception of a disappointing Mr. Hoffman, who really does not have the stature of a master Parisian perfumer) kept me completely enthralled.

    As in the original book, there is quite a bit of nudity, which is tastefully done, but I will be interested to see how this is swallowed in America – it will probably get an 18 rating or be cut down, which is a shame, it was given a 12 rating in Germany.

    In summary, a really great film, but probably best if you have read the book beforehand..
  • The idea of the movie is interesting but also a dilemma. How to bring a movie about smell to the screen? The movie does this well, by creating an unique atmosphere, that is visually focused on the smells in the movie, to help and tell the story and make it understandable.

    You can say what you want about this movie but you have to admit that it's pure eye-candy to look at. Every sequences is unique on its own, with its fantastic visual looks. Big kudos to the cinematography, make-up, sets and costumes of the movie. Also the musical score is suiting for the movie its feeling.

    By watching this movie it becomes very obvious that it was based on a book. The movie does not really have one clear main plot line, in terms of having a beginning, middle and ending that all fit in with each other. It makes the movie a bit frustrating and overlong to watch at times, since it just isn't clear were the movie is trying to head to. It doesn't make "Perfume: The Story of a Murderer" the most easy movie to watch, although it definitely more accessible than the marketing and whole hype surrounding the movie suggest it is. Though I don't think I want to watch this movie again any time soon.

    It's a well directed movie and Tom Tykwer does a good job at keeping the story as 'down to Earth' as possible, with the exception of 2 or 3 sequences, that were too significant and complicated to bring it to the screen in a simple way. Nevertheless, it in essence is a pretty unusual and inaccessible story, that is made perfectly understandable and accessible, due to the movie its directing. Seems like Tom Tykwer has a great future ahead of him.

    Can't say that I was always too happy about Ben Whishaw as the main lead of the movie. No, I don't think Ben Whishaw will grow into become a great well known actor. The supporting cast is significantly better with actors such as Dustin Hoffman and Alan Rickman, with John Hurt as the movie its narrator.

    All in all an unique viewing experience, that isn't among the best movies of the year but nevertheless is a real recommendable one.

    7/10

    http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
  • MehlAmKnie14 September 2006
    I just read the book last week and watched the movie yesterday. And I have to say, I liked it. For sure, it wasn't as good as the book. On the one hand it is hard to visualize smells and on the other hand not everything can be shown during the movie. But for me, it was realized pretty well. Even you can not smell the things, you can imagine how they smell which may be due to the camera work, which was well done! For me, the actors did a really good job, too. They played their roles really good and according to Grenouille, I really thought that he was the Grenouille described in the book. The only "negative" thing I can say about that, is that in the book he is described as an ugly person, but Ben Wishow is not ugly. But to me, that didn't really matter. So, all in all I have to say, that the movie isn't as good as the book (which is mostly the case), but although I think that it is a really good made movie.
  • This Spanish/German/French co-production turns out to be an interesting and exciting film based on Patrick Suskind (he is known to be very skeptical and for a long time did not want to sell the movie rights to his books) novel well adapted by Andrew Birkin and being developed during eighteen century , Paris . It deals with Jean Baptiste Grenouille (Ben Whishaw), an unfortunate young but born with an extreme olfactory sense who seeks the definitive scent . For that , he doesn't doubt to kill in cold blood . Jean becomes a psychopathic series killer , but he tries to preserve the vital essence for an ultimate perfume . Firstly , Jean falls enamored a beautiful girl (Karoline Herfurth) who finds in the streets and posteriorly he stalks numerous victims . After that , he serves for the most famous perfume maker named Giuseppe Baldini (Dustin Hoffman) . Later on , Baptiste pursues a gorgeous young girl (Rachel Hurd-Wood: Wendy in Peter Pan), daughter of a rich man named Antoine Richis (Alan Rickman) who engages her to the marquis of Montesquieu (Harris Gordon) and attempts to track down the heinous murderer . Meanwhile , the vicious killer displays a criminal rampage and goes on his objective , the creating the world's rapturing perfume .

    The picture is a co-production among various countries as Germany (Constantine Films) , France (Nouvelles editions) and Spain (Castelao , Julio Fernandez) realized in big budget and great production values . The film contains suspense , explicit and grisly violence , involving sexuality and disturbing images . Although sometimes is slow moving and overlong for a runtime about 147 minutes ; however resulting to be entertaining for the continued suspense . While the look is suitable atmospheric and colorful , the plot stretches plausibility to the breaking point , a fantastic final at the town square . During preproduction, director/screenwriter Tom Tykwer, Director of Photography Frank Griebe , Production Designer Uli Hanisch, and Costumer Designer Pierre-Yves Gayraud studied the complete works of Caravaggio, Rembrandt and Joseph Wright in order to ensure the film's aesthetic correctly captured 18th century France . Sensational outdoors are marvellously filmed on location in Figueras , Gerona , Tortosa and Alps locations . Glimmer and evocative cinematography by Frank Griebe and sensitive , appropriate musical score , including a feeling leitmotif .

    Taut and suspenseful direction by Tom Tykwer . This is Tom Tykwer's international breakthrough and was a hit with both audiences and critics alike . Tom's energetic style helps push this elegant and brilliant flick . The movie garnered many awards and was one of the most successful European films of the year . Former and subsequent projects filmed in creative manner and technically developed by Tykwer include the followings : the successful Run Lola run (1998) ,The princess and the warrior (2000) ,Heaven (2002) , The International (2009) and the ambitious epic Cloud Atlas (2012). Rating : Better than average , it's a good rendition of the famous best seller.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I felt sick to my stomach the entire time I was watching this movie - not because of the graphic content, but because I knew I had just made a huge mistake by paying five dollars to see this film.

    First, I will admit that there is, at least, one good theme in this movie: Grenouille (French for "frog") realizes the transitory nature of our existence and tries (in his own ridiculous and horrifyingly non-compelling way) to establish something permanent about himself. The problem I have with this movie is that the thematic richness of the film can be summed up in that one sentence... Yet, the film is 2 hours and 27 minutes long.

    The film is about a sociopath with an absolutely unbelievable sense of smell, played by Ben Whishaw. The emotionless portrayal (thanks, Whishaw) and staggering lack of dialog leave the audience with absolutely no chance of feeling any sympathy for (or connection to) the main character, who is the only thing on screen, smelling something or another, for what seem like hours at a time.

    We can't feel especially sorry for his victims, either. Out of about fifteen girls, only three of them have any lines at all, and the best-developed victim (his final victim, the one he chases through the majority of the film, and is able to track from across a mountain range by her scent alone) is nothing more than a stock character. The victims have absolutely no character depth whatsoever - they could be played by mannequins, and the rational portion of the audience is left wondering why, exactly, we are supposed to care about Grenouille's killing spree at all.

    Alan Rickman's portrayal was excellent, although this portrayal was overshadowed by the terrible quality of the way the character was written. Dustin Hoffman's character was likely the most bland and uninteresting character I have ever seen him portray, and, although I am certainly a fan of Dustin Hoffman, I was not impressed with his performance here. None of the other characters even had enough dialog or screen time to develop into rich or interesting characters.

    The exposition of the film is mildly compelling, although no momentum initiated in the exposition comes anywhere close to building and carrying through to the climax. There is no rising action for what seems like a very, very long time. The majority of the first half of the film seems to be comprised of the anti-hero standing around, trying to look creepy while either smelling something or yelling at Dustin Hoffman's character for not being able to synthesize the scent of copper or something equally asinine and uninteresting to the viewer.

    The climax of the film is lazy and nonsensical. A frenzied, bloodthirsty mob that wants the anti-hero dead for killing thirteen girls begins to adore and worship him because he dabs some perfume (which he made from the dead girls) on his neck. Then the crowd rapidly becomes a giant orgy because he throws his perfume-soaked handkerchief out into the crowd. A man whose daughter was killed by Grenouille smells the anti-hero and begs for the murderer's forgiveness, calling him "my son." It's deus ex machina, it's not compelling at all, and it's completely infuriating.

    It is matter-of-factly stated by the narrator that Grenouille could literally conquer the world "and more, if he wanted to" with the perfume, which is one of the only things I can think of that is as utterly laughable as the orgy/forgiveness scene immediately preceding the line.

    Finally, the line that the audience is left with as the movie ends is as infuriatingly ludicrous as anything else in the film: after Grenouille entices the impoverished people of the Paris fish markets to tear him to shreds and eat his flesh by pouring the "dead girl perfume" on himself, the narrator states that the man's killers felt happy, because this horribly bestial act was the first thing that they felt had done purely out of love. Since the film does not even attempt to explore the immensely complex theme of what love is, I cannot even begin to properly express the incompetence with which this movie addresses the theme with which the filmmakers chose to end the movie.

    To summarize: what may be the film's most problematic aspect is the fact that, while the audience has almost no reason whatsoever to sympathize with the central character, the narration and the construction of the film's events are CLEARLY orchestrated to portray the murderous anti-hero as the true victim of the film. Unfortunately, that role belongs to neither the pseudo-creepy and non-compelling anti-hero nor his bland and undeveloped victims. The true victims of this film are the movie-going audience.
  • cilantro-420 September 2006
    I didn't expect too much of the film as the producer, Bernd Eichinger, didn't succeed in my point of view with other book to film transitions like the name of the rose, the house of spirits or Smilla's sense of snow. they were all far too corny and even though each film had its moment, the films just weren't very good. I suspected the same to happen with the perfume. the teaser trailer was excellent, but the regular trailer spoilt a lot as it just showed too much and didn't capture the film's quality at all. so i entered the film with trepidation and was convinced otherwise. Tom Tykwer showed us again and again that he is a huge talent, be it winter sleeper, Lola runs or the warrior and the empress. the perfume is a visual feast. all roles are perfectly cast, the music, the camera, everything fits together like a perfect jigsaw puzzle. And the film isn't Hollywood-like mainstream like e.g. the Da Vinci Code at all. thank god. it has lots of black humor without getting cynic, it is quite amoral and at other times just immersed in beauty - and every penny of its 50 Mio euro budget shows. how much better to spend 50 Mio in the perfume than 150 Mio in crap movies like Wolfgang Petersen's latest. i am already very much looking forward to Mr Tykwer's next film. he plays in another league now.
  • I don't know if Kubrick really said, that the Novel, on which the movie is based, was not screen-able, because it was based on the smell sense of humans! But Tom Tykwer shows us here, that there is more there than the smell!

    I haven't read the novel, so I don't know how accurate the depictions are, but it seems like Tom T. is not afraid to pull punches. That's not to say, that this overly violent in the explicit sense. But one would argue that the real horror, always plays in ones mind. Seems like you will be able to judge if you're backing this theory or if you're against it. And although we never really get the man behind all this madness, it's a great work of art (the movie that is ... if you want you can call something else also a "work of art" ... You'll get it, after watching the movie, if you don't already know the novel!)
  • Warning: Spoilers
    this movie was just awful. totally predictable with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. the music was even worse, and the acting was atrocious. (and why do all the characters in movies set in France speak with British accents?) watching Dustin Hoffman phone it in is so depressing. there are a lot of shots of women's breasts, which offers little relief from the tedious story. The denouement depicts the serial murdering protagonist bewitching thousands of people with his perfume made of dead girls, transforming them from a murderous mob into a giant undulating group sex orgy. The capper is Alan Rickman trying to dramatically confront the hero/murderer in the foreground, while naked bodies mechanically pump away in the background.

    i wish i could have my money and my two-and-a-half hours back. the budget of this movie could have fed a lot of homeless people. hopefully the producers of this bloated blight will hire some comedians to do the commentary track when it is immediately released on DVD.

    unfortunately, IMDb does not offer a rating of '0'.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    'Perfume: The Story of a Murderer' is a faithful book adaptation which is both a good and a bad thing. For people who have read the book, written by Patrick Süskind, and liked it this is a film they are quite likely to like as well. They think of a passage from the book and how it could look, and director Tom Tykwer and his crew have made it look probably close to their imagination. The visuals, especially in the second half of the film truly are extraordinary. But film is another medium than books and in my opinion some minor changes would have helped the film.

    One important thing is its pacing. If you know nothing about the story there is a good chance you will find the middle part quite dull and the final act going too fast. Let's start at the beginning. We meet Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, being born on the fish market in Paris in the 18th century. The boy, who has no scent of his own, has a sense of smell that could lead him anywhere in the dark. To collect different scents becomes an obsession until, after I have skipped quite a bit from the story, as an adolescent (played by Ben Whishaw) he smells a woman in the way he has never smelled it. For the first time he sees, or actually smells, beauty. Sort of by accident he kills the woman and then tries to capture the scent, in which he fails to do so. This changes a couple of things.

    First of all he decides he wants to be a perfumer and he chooses Baldini (Dustin Hoffman) as his teacher. He wants to be this so he can learn how to keep the essence of a scent. All this leads him to Grasse, the perfume capital of the world where he learns a technique which he is about to try on different women. Since Jean-Baptiste has no feeling whatsoever, killing the woman first seems most easy. He needs thirteen samples to create his masterpiece and we learn quite early in the film that Laura (Rachel Hurd-Wood) will be his final victim. She is the daughter of the powerful Antoine Richis (Alan Rickman).

    How the story unfolds is for you to see, but to say it is interesting is an understatement. The ending feels oddly out of tone with the rest of the film, although it was done how it probably should have been. If Tykwer had chosen another approach he would have made a lot of readers upset. The screenplay part here might not please some, but read the novel to understand Tykwer's choices.

    The feeling of watching some problems with translating things from text to images was always there. Especially the voice over, done superbly by John Hurt, emphasized this thought. I was often amazed, impressed by the visuals, the Whishaw-performance and most of all by Tykwer's brave attempt to make a film out of a book that was considered unfilmable. On the other hand I was never impressed by the film itself. Almost, most of all in the end, but I never really got there. Still, 'Perfume' is a unique film which deserves praise on a lot of levels.
  • dreamwatcher19 September 2006
    People who know the book tend to expect an exact illustration. This c a n work, but serves in any case to prove the book as untouchable "original" of which the movie manages or not to find appropriate images. The film has its flaws, I admit. I won't repeat the points others found. But the book has flaws as well. Art is always flawed. So Süskind fails to make his main character real. Through narration we understand smell to be deeply connected to our emotions, but we have no soul in the book to identify with. Therefore everything is left to our imagination.

    Did anyone really wish to accompany an ugly, demented Grenouille two and a half hours long, and smile about the satirical and philosophical subtleness of the story? Film is a completely different art and requires the freedom to develop its own language. Imho Tom Tykwer made such a strong and overwhelming intro, the first 30 minutes are so good, that the rest of the movie, though good too, can't top it.

    Compared to last years big budget movies the film is the most interesting since many years. Count "Aviator", but please leave out "Pirates" and "Superman"
  • One of modern fiction's most eccentric killers gets his cinematic incarnation by great experimental filmmaker Tom Tykwer. Perhaps in less apt hands, the exceedingly preposterous plot would have translated worse onto the screen, given it's heavy reliance on sensual output based upon one man's irrationally accurate sense of smell. Through the perceptive frame of this director though, does this most unusual drama get to stretch it's unique scent. Perfume will have it's lulls after an initially captivating setup. Some of the acting does not match up with the director's skewed, period-piece vision (Dustin Hoffman's acting especially seems lazy and out of place here), and the midsection feels a bit stretched out while expecting viewers to suspend major doubts in the progressively foolish murder-mystery. But as a most unusually gripping finale takes shape, one is reminded how unabashedly original these characters and motivations are played out in this impressive production, resulting in a praise-worthy vision of an adaptation.
  • Of course, (mercifully) we cannot smell what the Perfumer smells. In compensation we have hyper-real imagery, using stunning macro shots that are extreme close-ups in startling detail - the tiny hairs on a nose, the explosive splash of a single drop of essence falling into a pool. But more than the classic beauty was also the revolting beauty - maggots in a rat, the filth of the fishmonger, bad teeth, dirty hands - all in amazing, sometimes squeamish detail.

    This film could not have been made in Hollywood - it has a unmistakeably European flavor and is unflinching in the details of early 18th century France. The story of single-minded obsession and remorseless killing in the name of love by a nearly mute actor is mesmerising. And Dustin Hoffman's merry turn as a foppish Italian perfumer provides welcome comic relief!
  • kw_walker13 January 2020
    OK. read the book a few years before going to see this film. I loved and could not put down the book. I've forgotten the film.
  • Wow, this is really a bizarre story with an ending that probably will turn off 98 percent of viewers who stick with this two hours, 147-minute film. I'm not sure what to make of it, other than totally understanding if people are left unsatisfied after watching this movie. As I said, I'm not sure how to interpret it as I just finished it minutes ago. It leaves you almost stunned.

    Rather than judging that finale and having to use spoilers, let me just comment on the first two hours of the film, which I found utterly fascinating. If I wasn't such an admirer of photography, art and special-effects, I doubt I would have found the movie so appealing because the story is "not for everyone." However, thanks to stunning French city and countryside scenery, 18th century period and beautiful women it enhanced the story to me. Yet, regardless of the visual treats, the story was so unusual it still would have held my attention.

    There are enough reviews here so that to go into the story in detail isn't needed except to say this is an "original." I'm not familiar with any other story about a man who has such an extraordinary sense of smell that he can perform olfactory miracles and then, because of it, uses it to turn into a mass murderer. This is weird, really weird, but captivating to say the least.

    Ben Wishaw, who plays the lead character "Jean-Baptist Grenouille, has a face that is perfect for this role. His emaciated body, which survived a brutal childhood existence from the moment he was born also makes his character all the more credible. The looks of shock and awe on this man's face throughout the picture also add to his believability. He was mesmerizing with his haunting expressions. Dustin Hoffman and Alan Rickman provide "name" actors the film but it's Wishaw's movie, all the way.

    I can only recommend this movie to those who share similar interests in cinematography and who like a "different" story but there are so many things in here - especially the ending - that could offend so many people, I would be hesitant to recommend this to the general viewer.

    I'm going to go look for the book at our local library. I'm curious how that version compared to the screenplay.
  • I had high hopes for this movie and, yes, tried my best to like it. The main reason: I love Patrick Süskind's novel, have read it numerous times and occasionally still give it a gander on audio-book (if you're familiar with German, I do recommend the version read by Gert Westphal). As can be expected, my expectations were high, yet, knowing about the complexity and topic of the book, also more than a little weary.

    Let's go right down to brass-tacks: it would have taken a director like Stanley Kubrick or Milos Forman and even those two would have had a tough time to translate the matter unto celluloid. And mind you: I'm in no way saying that Tom Tykwer produced a bad film. The actors are excellent, the costumes spectacular and the viewer feels transported straight to the Paris of Ludwig XVI. But capturing the essence of the novel, that's something the director didn't achieve.

    The fact that scents and smells play the main role in the world of Jean-Baptiste Grenouille isn't even the main obstacle. Although a master of dialogue – cult-shows like "Kir Royale" and "Monaco Franze" stand testament to that – in his novel Süskind primarily relies on narration. Since the novel is very episodic, making the transition to film even more problematic, most fans of the book will have their favourite chapters. In my case, my personal favourite also happens to be the part of the movie that I consider most accomplished. Partly due to the set itself, the scenes with Dustin Hoffman are a triumph. As mentioned, most of the cast is excellent but Hoffman has nailed his master-perfumer Baldini right on the spot. Every nuance, every gesture or facial expression, it all captures the Baldini of the novel.

    More Kudos must go to Ben Whishaw: presenting Grenouille for the first time, Süskind promises us (to paraphrase it) "one of the great monsters of his era, standing in line with the Napoleons, Robespierre and Saint-Just of his time". True, Grenouille is a monster and this is indeed the "story of a murderer". But expect no blood-thirsty, grimacing serial-killer, who gleefully offs his victim. Fans have long argued over what kind of creature Grenouille is, whether a psychopath with a gift or an autistic savant, who simply lacks all sense of empathy.

    I can only recommend this movie to fans of period-pieces like "Amadeus" or "Barry Lyndon" (though technically it doesn't quiet live up to either of those entirely). You might even enjoy it if you only have a fleeting interest in Süskind's book. But if you're one of those readers, who almost know "The Perfume" by heart and consider it on of the great novels of its time, you're most likely sit through a viewing with the constant afterthought that something essential is missing. The "absolute fragrance", if you so want. Hence, as a movie standing on its own feet, it's a solid 7/10, as an adaptation, I can give it no more than 5/10.
  • 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.
An error has occured. Please try again.