Perfume: The story of a murderer

daiixi

I dare you all to go see this movie and sit through it without laughing.

I was actually impressed with the storyline (although farfetched) and the colours etc until three quarters of the way through when the script writers decided to forget about any sort of reality and the film became fantastical and, for lack of a better vocabulary, dumb. I started laughing and the more I laughed the more I realised that the members of the sold out theatre around me weren't laughing (bar my faithful friend beside me and a couple of other gigglers behind me (he insists)) and the funnier my situation and amusement became.

Perhaps it was my mood. Perhaps I just can't grasp the delicate nature of the film. But I enjoyed it, no matter how stupid the ending was. Go see it. Let me know if only 2% (randomly plucked figure) think it's hysterically funny.

gandalf

So are you saying that this film stunk

jester77

It's a long time since I saw it and I can't remember if I laughed or giggled but I definelty did groan, particularly at the end!

gandalf

Seriously I agree, the final quarter of the film ruined it to a degree for me. Up until that it was interesting, the acting was good, the visuals were very good and the story made sense. Then "that" scene occured and my jaw hit the ground, where did that come from !!!! The writers must have been doing some serious drugs !!!!

ixoy

I'm assuming you're referring to

the "angel" scenes

. I really enjoyed them - a delightful change in direction. Sure it was somewhat bemusing and definetely in the realm of fantasy, but it didn't go against what the movie had setup. Bizarre but dumb? Why dumb merely because it's fantastical?

daiixi

No it was dumb because

he was taking his daughter all the way to the monastry to save her, locked her in her room and then LEFT THE KEY NEXT TO HIS BED!!

. I mean really. What muppet would do that? It was just weird after that.

Crash

How it happened in the book iirc (though i'll have to have a re-read to be sure)

daiixi

Didn't realise it was based on a book must have a look for it.

btw just want to say that I did enjoy the movie and I've been telling everyone to go see it. I just couldn't help but laugh at it!

Cactus Col

I enjoyed it up until the end too, very interesting, well acted, quite funny, and then it was just too silly for me.

Captain Trips

I thought it was great, and exactly as I imagined the book - the scene of Baldini's place especially. The director, from Run Lola Run, is very very good.

In terms of conveying the sense of smell/scent as a book did with nothing but words, definitely, Tom Tykwer does an equally good job of conveying it in visual form, in my opinion.

I think that it definitely is in the fantasy realm, but it's "real world" setting may confuse some - it more of a fairy tale than anything else (including when the father leaves the key at his bedside - is a man who can smell so acutely any more realistic? It defines itself as fantasy and far-fetched from the first scene). The character is a anti-hero, ignored by society from birth, looking for recognition. He can gain that, and in doing so conquers that which ignored him. I think that the lead role was again, exactly as how I imagined him from the book and is excellent.

There is no redemption and no happy ending - and it was not written to really have one. To translate the idea from a 1950s novel by a German, I think a suitable comparison is that it is a Stephen King story in 18th century France with a plot as realistic as one by Hans Christian Anderson, just go with it!

Gunther_Gloop

Captain Trips wrote:

I think that it definitely is in the fantasy realm, but it's "real world" setting may confuse some - it more of a fairy tale than anything else (including when the father leaves the key at his bedside - is a man who can smell so acutely any more realistic? It defines itself as fantasy and far-fetched from the first scene). The character is a anti-hero, ignored by society from birth, looking for recognition. He can gain that, and in doing so conquers that which ignored him. I think that the lead role was again, exactly as how I imagined him from the book and is excellent.

There is no redemption and no happy ending - and it was not written to really have one. To translate the idea from a 1950s novel by a German, I think a suitable comparison is that it is a Stephen King story in 18th century France with a plot as realistic as one by Hans Christian Anderson, just go with it!

I agree with what you say, but I had thought the book was written in the 70s. My copy says first published in 1985 though.
As for the main character being as you had imagined him from the book... this is the biggest divergence from the original story. In the book he is very ugly and unlikeable by all.
I don't think that would 'wash' in a movie (alas), but the changes made weren't too bad. Still I didn't like the "sense of innocent wonder" he has in the movie. I got no sense of anything going on inside his head -any subtlety replaced by this wide-eyed stare throughout.

I didn't find it hilarious or even funny. In fact I had no idea what the OP was talking about until he explained later on. Still, if it was enjoyed on that level too, what harm.

I'd like to have seen some of the other scenes from the book, but what's left is already a long film so I guess it would have taken too long. Still, I think it could do with a longer runtime to add more depth. As it is, it seems like it's rushing from one scene to the next -just to squeeze it in.

I barely noticed the 2+hr runtime fly by.
It doesn't add anything to the book, but it does look nice and things are a bit 'easier to take' in the film (the book can be.. 'distasteful' at times).
Then again, the book is better at explaining anything that might come across as more ridiculous in a film.

Captain Trips

Gunther_Gloop wrote:

In the book he is very ugly and unlikeable by all.

I thought he was in the film too!

daiixi

Maybe I'm just crazy or maybe my view was different because I haven't read the book and as I said above I didn't even realise it was originally a book.



Oh, and I'm a gurl

MadsL

I started laughing and the more I laughed the more I realised that the members of the sold out theatre around me weren't laughing (bar my faithful friend beside me and a couple of other gigglers behind me (he insists)) and the funnier my situation and amusement became.

I would have seriously considered punching you. Inconsiderate oaf.

spurious

The film was OK. Costumes and sets very good. Dustin a bit hammy as usual.

The book is fantastic and attempting to put it on screen was (I think) always doomed.

daiixi

MadsL wrote:

I would have seriously considered punching you. Inconsiderate oaf.

Excuse me? How is laughing being inconsiderate? If you don't want someone laughing in a theatre then either (i) don't go or (ii) go when the session won't have anyone else in there.

ixoy

daiixi wrote:

Excuse me? How is laughing being inconsiderate? If you don't want someone laughing in a theatre then either (i) don't go or (ii) go when the session won't have anyone else in there.

Because films attempt to set a mood and draw the audience in. If you're into a movie and enjoying it, the last thing you want is someone disrupting your focus from the movie by laughing aloud at a scene that didn't really warrant it. In much the same way as I don't appreciate people talking during a movie or answering their damned phones - it lowers the quality of the movie-going experience.

I actually started my own thread on this here, just over a year occur so I know exactly what the OP is talking about.

Backtoblack

spurious wrote:

The film was OK. Costumes and sets very good. Dustin a bit hammy as usual.

The book is fantastic and attempting to put it on screen was (I think) always doomed.

One other poster on this thread said the book was distasteful.. but you enjoyed it. Funnily enough I saw the book on sale in town yesterday, was going to get it but was unsure & need a recommendation... ?

spurious

I would highly recommend it. I found it to be one of those books that changes how you see (smell) the world. I thought the film tried to recreate that, but didn't pull it off.

daiixi

ixoy wrote:

Because films attempt to set a mood and draw the audience in. If you're into a movie and enjoying it, the last thing you want is someone disrupting your focus from the movie by laughing aloud at a scene that didn't really warrant it. In much the same way as I don't appreciate people talking during a movie or answering their damned phones - it lowers the quality of the movie-going experience.

I think people are forgetting that I thoroughly enjoyed the film however I believe that the ending was laughable and so I laughed.

Gunther_Gloop

Backtoblack wrote:

One other poster on this thread said the book was distasteful.. but you enjoyed it. Funnily enough I saw the book on sale in town yesterday, was going to get it but was unsure & need a recommendation... ?

As a father of a young girl, I found it hard to read certain sections concerning the beauty and smell and subsequent killing of young girls on the cusp of puberty.
The main character also is not someone that can really be sympathised with.
I didn't have a problem with that, but I know others would/do. The film makes him a little more sympathetic IMO.
(also the girls are a little older in the film too).

If you think you can handle these, then it's a great book.