Watching the Los Angeles Times sing praises for scent of a woman was truly an interesting thing.Ever since the Golden Raspberry Awards, or more accurately, since hudson hawk was released in May 1991, the American media had been lambasting Hugo. They believed Hugo had completely ruined his talent with alcohol and drugs, and that the brilliant Actor who had briefly shone in dead poets society had completely fallen. Hugo's tearful breakdown at the Golden Raspberry Awards ceremony pushed this negative discourse to its peak.Under these circumstances, people almost forgot that Hugo didn't just have dead poets society as a representative work; his previous films like the little diner, Dune, Quicksilver, The Chocolate War, and others were all very solid works—otherwise, Hugo wouldn't have had loyal fans like Alex and Meredith. One must realize that Hugo didn't become popular as a 'pretty boy' relying on his looks back then; he carved out a place for himself relying on his own solid strength.However, amidst the tide of bad reviews, naturally, no one cared about this. This also affected the early promotion of scent of a woman, as could be seen from the media's one-sided pessimism.Now that the movie was released, the media immediately changed their tune because Hugo had once again proven himself with an outstanding performance, awakening people's memories of his past. They couldn't help but sigh, "Ah, we all forgot that Hugo is a true Actor who entered our sights relying on his acting skills." Naturally, words of praise for the movie, for Pacino, and for Hugo came flooding in.scent of a woman was like a massive slap in the face; all the media outlets that had once been pessimistic proactively offered up their cheeks, willingly taking the slap, and then contentedly sang the movie's praises.The first batch of reviews appeared after the premiere, while the second batch had to wait until after the film's official limited release.scent of a woman chose Friday, October 16th, to officially begin its limited release in twenty theaters. From the 17th through the 19th, reviews from professional media outlets were published one after another, critiquing the film. This time, the situation following the premiere continued, as scent of a woman welcomed one piece of good news after another.Owen Gleiberman, a film critic for Entertainment Weekly, stated, "At the end of the film, the power of scent of a woman is still a step below rain man, failing to more deeply awaken people's reflection, which is a pity. However, Pacino's mature performance—simultaneously coarse and tender, brutal and warm—is a masterclass. Hugo also delivered a long-awaited brilliant performance, supporting the entire film alongside Pacino!" In the end, Owen gave it a high score of eighty.Other professional magazines giving it an eighty included Reel Views and TV Guide. The former commented, "If there is anything special about this film, it is Slade's realistic and believable characterization, and Simmons' adherence to principles that are both transcendental and rooted in reality." The latter believed, "Thanks to Al Pacino's historic and wonderful performance, scent of a woman has become a recommended film. Hugo Lancaster's eye-catching performance makes the film's lengthy two-and-a-half-hour runtime acceptable—of course, if the film were shortened to two hours with a more powerful ending, it would be even better."Praise from professional media came in wave after wave. The two professional publications most valued by the Hollywood industry, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, did not miss this grand event either. These two publications are in nearly everyone's hands in Hollywood, and their influence within the industry is second to none.Variety gave a fair evaluation of seventy-five points: "The entire film is actually Al Pacino's solo performance. Although he plays a blind man, we see more in his eyes than those with normal vision. If one must add another reason to watch this movie, perhaps Hugo Lancaster can count for half."The evaluation from The Hollywood Reporter was very similar: "Martin Brest has given the film a brand new connotation, but it's a pity the long and tedious length reduces the film's charm by half. Fortunately, Al Pacino and Hugo Lancaster teamed up to make up for this half, with Pacino contributing seventy percent of the effort, which brings this film back into the list of 'worth watching' masterpieces." Regarding the score, it also gave a decent rating of seventy-five.Additionally, the professional film magazine based in New York, The Village Voice, also expressed its view: "A brilliant tango is enough to make this film a classic. If you need a few more reasons, a car chase and a speech would be excellent choices; and of course, Al Pacino and Hugo Lancaster." A score of eighty points can be considered very outstanding.It was evident that the industry's views were basically consistent: Al's brilliance, Hugo's resurgence, and the excessive length—these comments were repeated over and over. However, besides the praise, there were also quite a few criticisms. Aside from USA Today, several other media outlets were not optimistic about scent of a woman.The Austin Chronicle gave it only fifty points, believing that "it is undeniable that Pacino's performance is worth remembering, but other than that, the entire film is just a bunch of dull shots combined meaninglessly."Rolling Stone, which started in music and has now grown into a general-interest magazine, expressed its distaste for the film with a harsh review: "A useless crock." The terrible score of thirty-eight was even more unsightly.The Globe and Mail, a newspaper from Toronto, Canada, also issued a red-ink score of thirty-eight: "In this movie, you can only see a symbolic study, a series of meaningless wonderful performances, and a series of beautiful scenes without reference. There is a narrative vacuum between the performances and the scenes, like a hollow work filmed in the Ice Age."Whether it was praise or criticism, the attention scent of a woman received from many media outlets was unexpected. It was originally thought that this would be an ignored art film, but now it seemed everyone had turned their gaze toward it.In this era without the internet, the aggregate media score became the most direct standard for judging a film's quality. Ultimately, scent of a woman earned scores from eighteen media outlets, with an aggregate score of seventy-two—not too high, but already very respectable.In addition, corresponding to the media scores were the audience scores. CinemaScore, born in 1978, is a public score distinct from professional film critics. Generally speaking, professional critics tend to dominate public opinion on films, and their reviews often emphasize the film's meaning rather than the audience's viewing experience. Many popcorn movies find it hard to please professional critics but remain attractive to audiences. Film reviews only provide a single perspective to view a movie, which is unreasonable. Thus, CinemaScore emerged; this rating is entirely based on scores given by audiences after they enter the theater to watch the film, independent of professional critics, representing only the personal feelings of the audience.Currently, CinemaScore is also the only audience word-of-mouth score cited by professional magazines like The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter. CinemaScore does not use a hundred-point scale; instead, like a school report card, it ranks from A+ downwards. Anything lower than a C- can be considered a terrible work.On CinemaScore, scent of a woman earned a 'B+'. This result can be said to be slightly better than the aggregate media score, showing that the audience liked the movie even more.From media praise to audience support, scent of a woman swept away its pre-release underdog status and won comprehensive recognition. The good news didn't end there; with the film's release, eyes inevitably had to lock onto the box office.Although scent of a woman was only in limited release in twenty theaters and was an art film without much box office competitiveness, as long as a movie is released, how to recover costs and achieve a profit is the ultimate goal of every film company. Art films do not have strong box office pull, but an outstanding per-theater average is still noteworthy, not to mention the broad prospects in the home video rental market after the film wins excellent word-of-mouth.After scent of a woman was released on October 16th, the news of the constant flow of people in the twenty theaters made Universal Pictures overjoyed. When the opening weekend ended, the per-theater average of twenty-five thousand dollars was truly eye-catching—compared to the eight thousand dollars per theater generally predicted by the media before the film's release, it had tripled. This data easily crushed all the media! This meant scent of a woman took in five hundred thousand dollars in box office earnings in its first weekend of release.Although a weekend box office of five hundred thousand dollars was not enough to put scent of a woman in the top ten of the box office charts for the third week of October, its achievement of taking the number one spot for per-theater average among all films this week still drew a wave of praise from the media. Universal Pictures was even less stingy with its joy. One must realize that the final investment cost of this film was only eight million dollars; achieving such outstanding results in its first week of limited release was indeed worth celebrating.Professional critics, audiences, box office... Since its release, scent of a woman has seen frequent good news, stepping onto the stage of the 1992 autumn film market with an exceptionally strong start. This was a situation no one had predicted before. What's more interesting is that the literary work a river runs through it, which had just become the focus of attention last week, immediately became a subject of comparison, and the two young supporting Actors, Hugo and Brad, became the focus of conversation.
