Business Wealth Job Creation Personal Wealth Systems

Product Description
HOPING TO EARN EXTRA MONEY OVER THE THANKSGIVING WEEKEND, CHARLIE SIMMS AGREES TO LOOK AFTER BLIND, RETIRED LIEUTENANT COLONEL FRANK SLADE. BUT CHARLIE IS IN FOR EVEN MORE SURPRISES WHEN SLADE TAKES OFF FOR A WILD WEEKEND IN NEW YORK CITY THAT WILL CHANGE THE LIVES OF BOTH MEN FOREVER.Amazon.com essential video
Hoo-ah! After seven Oscar nominations for his outstanding work in films such as The Godfather, Serpico, and Dog Day Afternoon, it’s ironic that Al Pacino finally won the Oscar for his grandstanding lead performance in this 1992 crowd pleaser. As the blind, blunt, and ultimately benevolent retired Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade, Pacino is both hammy and compelling, simultaneously subtle and grandly over-the-top when defending his new assistant and prep school student Charlie (Chris O’Donnell) at a disciplinary hearing. While the subplot involving Charlie’s prep-school crisis plays like a sequel to Dead Poets Society, Pacino’s adventurous es… More >>
Scent of a Woman

1. mistermaxxx@yahoo.com says:

   November 27, 2009 at 7:23 pm

   I have dug Al Pacino for a long time but he has made a lot of clunkers over the past decade and this falls into that pile.he shouldn’t have won over Denzel for this Performance period.this film is pretty flat.and as far as playing a blind role check out Gene Wilder in see no evil hear no evil.far more convincing than Pacino.as for Chris O’Donnell he should be working at a Hot Dog stand somewhere.he can’t act at all.
   Rating: 2 / 5
2. David Q. Trinh says:

   November 27, 2009 at 8:47 pm

   This movie is for you if you want to waste your time watching two people talking for over two hours. I can’t even begin to explain how boring this movie is.
   Rating: 2 / 5
3. Samuel Clemens says:

   November 27, 2009 at 10:55 pm

   4 out of 4 stars. The overwhelming character trait of Colonel Frank Slade (Pacino) is that he desperately wants to believe in the goodness of human nature again. He wants it so bad, in fact, the he is desperately insecure that he will find out that it isn’t true. He doesn’t want to be disappointed. So he is mean to everyone. He doesn’t want to give people a chance to let him down. If someone is nice to him, his attitude is, “Don’t toy with my emotions.” But along comes student Charlie Simms, who is simply, a good guy. Slade sits in almost disbelief when he learns Charlie is from the Pacific-Northwest instead of the big-shot East Coast. To Slade, Simms is a Rockwellian character. Slade has stopped believing that people like this even exist. In their first meeting, Slade alternates between being touched by Simms’ story, and becoming angry, believing that this is an act and Simms is making a fool out of him. For Frank, it is within days of being too late. He is plannning to commit suicide. It will take a great deal of emotional adventure for Charlie to pull him back from the brink of death. (Ironically, though, their adventures consist of Frank teaching Charlie how to live.) The main power of the movie is that all this happens in a single weekend. A weekend is a not a long period of time, and the characters are not even the same people they were when it started. It gives the movie a perceived density. It is is a great movie, but perhaps does not belong in the category of the greatest movies, because of its contrived Dead Poets Society bookends. They could be edited down to almost nothing, and the movie would be only the better for it. The scene where Frank saves Charlie from expulsion might be needed, but it is done as a hollywood cliche. In fact, it falls into the worst of the bad-ending categories: The slow clap (or at least a form of it). (Also, Pacino’s “I’ll take a flame-thrower to this is place” is not needed. Apparently, he just feels the need to work a line like that into all of his movies. )
   
   Rating: 1 / 5
4. Anonymous says:

   November 28, 2009 at 12:26 am

   “Scent of a Woman” is among the most overwrought films of all time, and is the most compelling evidence that director Martin Brest skipped the editing classes in film school. There are entire tracts in this movie that serve neither to further the plot, nor to develop the characters. Generally, those are the scenes you cut. In addition, the marzipan ending made me cringe in my seat in the theater. Chris O’Donnell may be the worst actor working today. His career is testament to the fact that collegiate sweaters and a nice smile don’t further one’s acting ability. And then there’s the case of Al Pacino. There are parts in this movie where he looks like he’s doing comedic improvisation. That Pacino won a Best Actor Oscar for this performance over Denzel Washington in “Malcolm X” is one of the all time academy-voting travesties – surpassed only be Tommy Lee Jones winning for “The Fugitive” over Ralph Fiennes in “Schindler’s List.” In sum, this movie is entirely too long, too vapid, and just plain too bad.
   Rating: 1 / 5
5. Anonymous says:

   November 28, 2009 at 1:01 am

   … and when I say “Hollywood,” I don’t mean this in a complimentary way. I can’t say that I wasn’t entertained, but other than that the film has very few redeeming values (remind you of anything else Hollywood has released in the past 25 years?).

   Although I enjoy Pacino as much as anyone, he plays the same note in every single picture — loud, forceful and aggressive. The ending was just awful and totally unrealistic and brought back bad memories of other (unnamed but obvious) films where someone makes a dumb speech (or says/does something else totally contrived and meant to arouse emotions) and everyone stands up & claps at the end. I really wanted to like this film more than I did, and the ending sort of ruined it for me. I think I’ve outgrown the sort of maudlin, sentimental unrealism Hollywood throws up on the screen to woo the masses. I’m sure this review won’t be very popular either, but I think honesty is a more important value than “not snitching on your friends.” If you disagree, please feel free to snitch on me with a “no” vote.
   Rating: 3 / 5