Critics’ reviews

Scent of a Woman (1992)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 73: 5 positive, 1 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Scent of a Woman

73
Positive
5
Mixed
1
Negative
1

Most critics respond warmly to Scent of a Woman, with praise concentrated on Al Pacino’s performance as the abrasive, unhappy blind colonel. The reviews repeatedly credit his shifts between bullying, charm and despair with making a familiar story involving an older man and a teenager compelling, even when its plotting strains belief. The interplay between the leads also earns approval, with Chris O’Donnell’s quieter contribution providing support for a performance that dominates the film.

The reservations centre on length, contrivance and sentimentality, though critics differ considerably over how much these matter. Some find Pacino sufficiently entertaining to carry the predictable material; Variety argues that the film stretches its modest premise too far. The New Yorker offers a more fundamental dissent: it finds Pacino’s characterisation so chilling and emotionally complex that the story’s reassuring moral framework cannot adequately contain it.

RogerEbert.com
23 December 1992 · Roger Ebert
85*

The critic praises the film as an intelligent and skillful take on coming-of-age and prep-school genres, highlighting Al Pacino's risky and powerful performance as the abrasive yet romantic blind colonel.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
23 December 1992 · Peter Rainer
80*

The review highlights Pacino's powerful, self-loathing performance as a desolate bully in a limited-scope drama that works due to its focus on language and character interplay between the leads.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · David Parkinson
80

This lengthy melodrama avoids sickly sentiment thanks to Al Pacino's towering, Oscar-winning performance as the blind ex-soldier enjoying a New York weekend. Chris O'Donnell's supporting role is quietly impressive, but the film belongs to Pacino's commanding presence.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
23 December 1992 · Janet Maslin
75*

The review calls the film a conventional buddy story elevated by Al Pacino's show-stopping intensity and the strong showcase it provides for his talents, turning contrived elements into an effective vehicle.

Read the full review →
Empire
· Angie Errigo
65*

Pacino dominates as the irascible blind colonel in a contrived, overlong buddy picture that echoes Rain Man and Dead Poets Society. The film is predictable and unoriginal but remains entertaining thanks to the star's showy, relish-filled performance.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
21 December 1992 · Terrence Rafferty
40*

The critic finds the movie's heartwarming intentions undermined by Pacino's complex and chilling performance, which taps emotions too deep and frightening to resolve neatly in the story's moral ending.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · SGr

The film combines two plots around a blind, bitter ex-soldier and a teenager hired to watch him, with a predictable but wholesome outcome. Pacino's energetic, show-stopping performance as the lead, including a tango and a suicide threat, is the main draw despite the corniness.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1991 · ** · Variety Staff

The review notes Pacino's virtuoso star turn but criticizes the film for indulgently stretching a modest conceit past the breaking point in its reconceptualization of the source material.

Read the full review →
Collider
23 December 2022 · A · Lloyd Farley
95

The critic praises Al Pacino's nuanced and masterful performance as the blind Lt. Col. Frank Slade, highlighting its range from charm to despair, and notes the film's exploration of duality, growth, and makeshift family bonds between Slade and Charlie. They single out Pacino's Oscar-worthy portrayal and the strong lead performances as standout elements.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate