[Stryder]

I found it at the library.. Is it worth watching? I've heard some good things.. I'm interested at this point only because Tykwer is behind it.

[King Ralph]

Yes, it was in my top 15 of 2006.

[zpt4x]

I loved it. Only small complaint is against the occasional pointless narration that really irked me, but everything else works and the ending is awesome and ballsy

[Man-of-Leisure]

Definitely worth watching. Ebert has a great review of it if you don't mind spoilers.

[Quite-Gone Genie]

It's surprisingly better than the trailers suggested.

[Diogenes]

7/10

I thought it was uneven, entering into hot mess territory. The storyline is...odd, just like the book, which I thought was equally uneven in quality (and odd). In fact, in terms of style and storytelling, I'd argue that the movie was better. I took off points for the fact that I have some quibbles with the story's actual thesis as I interpret it, which I'd be happy to explain after you've seen the movie. The actors were uneven too, with Dustin Hoffman being cartoonish and over-the-top and Alan Rickman being (mostly) subtle but consistently awesome. Ben Whishaw was fine.

[Stryder]

Cool. I'll give it a look-see. Dustin Hoffman looks like Captain Hook without the hair on the DVD cover.

[Matthew Good... Band]

Didn't Ebert and Roeper absolutely hate that film? I remember at least one of them saying it was among the worst of that year.

[Stryder]

Originally Posted by Matthew Good... Band

Didn't Ebert and Roeper absolutely hate that film? I remember at least one of them saying it was among the worst of that year.

Roeper hated it.

[Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Stryder

Roeper hated it.

It's one of those movies, like Inglourious Basterds, which absolutely hits the mark for some, and definitely not for others. But like Basterds, Perfume has undeniable merits, and unusual enough a storyline that I think most people would consider it fascinating, if not actually good.

[gilaskan]

I think it's quite good, but it suffers from a lot of balance issues. I'd recommend it to most movie fans, but with caution.

[Bronco67]

This movie should only be watched on Bluray with a giant screen. It's beautiful.

[El Chorizo]

Absolutely worth watching.

[Atomic Cow]

It was my favorite or second favorite movie of that year. Don't let your hopes swing too high on it though as some people don't like it or don't like how it ends. I thought it was perfectly fantastic for the kind of story as its a fairy tale for adults. If I have a gripe it could have been shortened a bit on the Dustin Hoffman segment. But its a minor gripe. Perfume is the main reason I am interested in Twyker.

[Labrazio]

I love Perfume. It's a great movie, & definitely one of the best of 2006.

[Errol Flynn]

orgy/10.

[Morphy]

Originally Posted by Labrazio

I love Perfume. It's a great movie, & definitely one of the best of 2006.

Better than Behind the Mask?

Select the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text

I'll stop.

[Nived]

Definitely worth checking out. It's still one of my very favorite films of that year.

[Labrazio]

Originally Posted by Morphy

Better than Behind the Mask?

Select the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text

Ha, yeah.

I like Behind the Mask, though.

[VAIERS V.]

Originally Posted by Stryder

I found it at the library.. Is it worth watching? I've heard some good things.. I'm interested at this point only because Tykwer is behind it.

but I dont like it ending so hendonism

[Thief12]

I didn't like it that much. I felt that the film sorta tried to romanticize the protagonist, and that didn't work with me. My wife liked it more though.

[El Chorizo]

Originally Posted by Morphy

Better than Behind the Mask?

Select the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text

Unfair.

That's comparing Select the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text

condensed virginal essence

toSelect the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text

you have no idea how much cardio I have to do

.

I don't think one can make such a comparison. How do you even decide?

[Morphy]

Originally Posted by El Chorizo

Unfair.

That's comparing Select the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text
toSelect the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text
.

I don't think one can make such a comparison. How do you even decide?

Haha.

[Izzy Black]

Hated it back when I saw it in '06.

Still hate it.

Plenty of sex though if you're into oggling nude female bodies.

[Stryder]

Saw it last night..

Whoa. I'm still processing it. I liked it, alot. It was like an 18th century gothic art-house feature length version of an Axe commercial.

The one thing I hated though.. is the John Hurt voice over. What the fuck?!? Useless. Take that out.. and you have an incredible movie. 8.5/10.

[Atomic Cow]

Originally Posted by Stryder

Saw it last night..

Whoa. I'm still processing it. I liked it, alot. It was like an 18th century gothic art-house feature length version of an Axe commercial.

The one thing I hated though.. is the John Hurt voice over. What the fuck?!? Useless. Take that out.. and you have an incredible movie. 8.5/10.

I've always disliked the criticism of the narration because it shows a failure to recognize that this film is signaling consciously or unconsciously that it is an adult fairy tale. So its an important part of the atmosphere of the film. Which contains elements only allowed in fairy tales.
Its a bedtime story told of a boy with a special gift. Thus the title of the film. So you have a more incredible move because of the convention.

Some people, particularly film school students have a knee jerk reaction to all narration. Sometimes narration is justified.

[Stryder]

Originally Posted by Atomic Cow

I've always disliked the criticism of the narration because it shows a failure to recognize that this film is an adult fairy tale. So its an important part of the atmosphere of the film.
Its a bedtime story told of a boy with a special gift.

Some people, particularly film school students have a knee jerk reaction to all narration. Sometimes narration is justified.

Sometimes narration is justified..

True.

But.. I felt it completely unnecesary in this movie. It was as if the director didnt' trust that the people watching would be feeling what he intended them to feel or understand so he felt it valid to put a voice over.. the voice over didn't RUIN the movie for me.. but I imagined the movie without it.. and I imagined a much better film.

[Atomic Cow]

Originally Posted by Stryder

Sometimes narration is justified..

True.

But.. I felt it completely unnecesary in this movie. It was as if the director didnt' trust that the people watching would be feeling what he intended them to feel or understand so he felt it valid to put a voice over.. the voice over didn't RUIN the movie for me.. but I imagined the movie without it.. and I imagined a much better film.

To your credit you can acknowledge some narration is justified.
I can say with a clarity of consciousness that your assertion that the director put in narration didn't trust the audience is wrong in a big way. That is exactly the film student response to all narration. Its poison. They hear narration immediately assume its an insult.
I don't know if you went to film school or picked it up over time talking to people who are into film.

Well in this case (and many others) an emphatic no. There is a very specific reason for it. There is nothing complicated about this film not to understand. Fairy tales are read to us. Its a convention that makes us receptive to fantastical elements. You are quite intentionally supposed to feel and be willing to feel a little like a child. But the subject matter is of course entirely adult. You imagined it without narration because you quickly considered it insulting and rejected it. Its not necessarily a natural response.

Second, as someone who went to film school I am though a big believer in economy. The conventional wisdom of the anti narration crowd is that you should show something never tell it. Which to me is foolishness. You use the tools that are right for the film to convey things efficiently. Narration here contextualizes and flavors the events that are about to happen. Its not that you get that he can smell long distances. Its how you interact with the amazing and sometimes ludicrous events of coincidence. In a natural world setting some of the events would seem disturbing and dark. Grenouille is an awful person but spun as a story character his motives are sympathetic in spite of their intrinsic horror. Personally I don't think you successfully can sustain that fantastical mood which sells the final payoff which is just utterly magical and fantastical without this context of being told a bedtime story. So for me its not about being necessary but being a good choice for the kind of story being told.


Its a matter of opinion but I think its something that should be enjoyed as a treat for you to enjoy and not an insult to your intellect created by a lazy film maker who didn't trust his audience. Both are valid ways of looking at it. But one makes for a less enjoyable experience.

[Stryder]

Originally Posted by Atomic Cow

I can say with a clarity of consciousness that your assertion that the director put in narration didn't trust the audience is wrong in a big way. That is exactly the film student response to all narration. Its poison. They hear narration immediately assume its an insult.
I don't know if you went to film school or picked it up over time talking to people who are into film.

Well in this case (and many others) an emphatic no. There is a very specific reason for it. There is nothing complicated about this film not to understand. Fairy tales are read to us. Its a convention that makes us receptive to fantastical elements. You are quite intentionally supposed to feel and be willing to feel a little like a child. But the subject matter is of course entirely adult. You imagined it without narration because you quickly considered it insulting and rejected it. Its not necessarily a natural response.

Second, as someone who went to film school I am though a big believer in economy. The conventional wisdom of the anti narration crowd is that you should show something never tell it. Which to me is foolishness. You use the tools that are right for the film to convey things efficiently. Narration here contextualizes and flavors the events that are about to happen. Its not that you get that he can smell long distances. Its how you interact with the amazing and sometimes ludicrous events of coincidence. In a natural world setting some of the events would seem disturbing and dark. Grenouille is an awful person but spun as a children's story character his motives are sympathetic in spite of their intrisic horror. Personally I don't think you successfully can sustain that fantastical mood which sells the final payoff which is just utterly magical and fantastical without this context of being told a bedtime story.

Its a matter of opinion but I think its something that should be enjoyed as a treat for you to enjoy and not an insult to your intellect created by a lazy film maker who didn't trust his audience. Both are valid ways of looking at it. But one makes for a less enjoyable experience.

I get what you're saying and you make some good points.. you're not wrong.

I'm not anti-narration. I was just trying to take in all the imagery and sights and sounds..and I felt the voice over was distracting.. I couldn't fully enjoy what I was seeing while the voice over was taking place because I was listening..hoping for some alternative odd insight into what was happening but he was just describing what I was watching..

The movie was really good.. and I think had it been a lesser experience I wouldn't have cared about the voice-over.

[Atomic Cow]

I can't argue out your first impressions which are real for you. Just maybe hoping if you catch it again you might be able to ease into it more. I didn't have to think about why the narration was in the film until someone in the past challenged it. Bladerunner and Dark City are both better films without narration. I did fine with Avatar on my first viewing because the context helped, but I get impatient waiting for them to get through the opening narration now.