(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)
(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)
The mini-review:
Scent of a Woman (1992)
acting 10
directing 8
effects 7
editing 8
writing 8
SW SCORE: 41
4.1 out of 5 š
++
I’m happy that Al Pacino won the best actor Oscar for this film. He used to do roles that were diverse: The Godfather, Dog Day Afternoon, and (this). But he’s settled into a rhythm that happens to most of the great ones: he’s just playing th same personality for all his characters, regardless of their occupations or situations. But the character of a balls-to-the-wall, blind, crazy aggressive, military veteran who can dance the tango is one that’s really never been duplicated. it was also nice to see him play a role that didn’t involve violence. Look, I love violence. I was raised on violent media in the 80s. I’m just saying this because he’s best known for being a cop or a robber. And aside from the master’s performance, let’s give props to Chris O’Donnell. It’s never easy to play the straight man and he provides an earnest counterbalance to Pacino’s mania.
.
.
.
Review process: (this is always evolving, I’m sad to say. I’m more of a watcher who makes mostly unhelpful observations about things I have absorbed. I am not unlike a pop culture blob.)
Two scores are assigned: (I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me)
(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, effects: cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.
(2) Octopuses (0-5 š, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)
(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feelingā¦not that SW score is scientificā¦but this one is even less so
(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant)
