People who know the book tend to expect an exact illustration. This c a n work, but serves in any case to prove the book as untouchable "original" of which the movie manages or not to find appropriate images. The film has its flaws, I admit. I won't repeat the points others found. But the book has flaws as well. Art is always flawed. So Süskind fails to make his main character real. Through narration we understand smell to be deeply connected to our emotions, but we have no soul in the book to identify with. Therefore everything is left to our imagination.
Did anyone really wish to accompany an ugly, demented Grenouille two and a half hours long, and smile about the satirical and philosophical subtleness of the story? Film is a completely different art and requires the freedom to develop its own language. Imho Tom Tykwer made such a strong and overwhelming intro, the first 30 minutes are so good, that the rest of the movie, though good too, can't top it.
Compared to last years big budget movies the film is the most interesting since many years. Count "Aviator", but please leave out "Pirates" and "Superman"
Did anyone really wish to accompany an ugly, demented Grenouille two and a half hours long, and smile about the satirical and philosophical subtleness of the story? Film is a completely different art and requires the freedom to develop its own language. Imho Tom Tykwer made such a strong and overwhelming intro, the first 30 minutes are so good, that the rest of the movie, though good too, can't top it.
Compared to last years big budget movies the film is the most interesting since many years. Count "Aviator", but please leave out "Pirates" and "Superman"