Critics’ reviews

Scent of a Woman (1992)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 78: 6 positive, 0 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Scent of a Woman

78
Positive
6
Mixed
0
Negative
1

Most critics respond warmly to Scent of a Woman, with praise concentrated on Al Pacino’s performance as the abrasive, blind Colonel Slade. The reviews find energy, charisma and self-loathing in his portrayal, and generally credit him with sustaining the film through its more conventional passages. Chris O’Donnell’s quieter contribution and the relationship between the leads also draw approval, though Pacino receives most of the attention.

The reservations centre on length, predictability and the awkward joining of the prep-school story to the weekend with Slade. For most critics, the acting makes those weaknesses tolerable, but the spread of opinion is wide. The New Yorker offers a distinct objection: Pacino’s bitter, unsettling colonel works against the intended warmth rather than supplying it. The disagreement is less about his ability than about whether such a performance helps this particular sentimental story.

RogerEbert.com
23 December 1992 · ★★★★/4 · Roger Ebert
100

Ebert praises Pacino's risky, intense performance as the abrasive but romantic blind colonel and the intelligent handling of the coming-of-age and prep-school story elements.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
23 December 1992 · Peter Rainer
85*

Rainer hails it as a remarkable film and tour de force for Pacino, whose powerful performance shows self-loathing and sustains the story despite some attenuation.

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

This lengthy melodrama is kept vibrantly alive by a towering Oscar-winning performance from Al Pacino as the blind ex-soldier sampling life's luxuries over a weekend. Chris O'Donnell's supporting turn is quietly impressive, but the film belongs to Pacino.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
23 December 1992 · Janet Maslin
80*

Maslin calls it a conventional father-son buddy film that succeeds as a terrific showcase for Pacino's show-stopping intensity and versatile talents.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · SGr
70*

The film splices two plots together more ambitiously than successfully, with a predictable but wholesomely traditional outcome. Pacino delivers a standout performance full of energy and charisma as the blind warrior, making the result corny yet heart-warming.

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

Rafferty finds the film fails to deliver as a simple heart-warmer because Pacino's complex, chilling performance as the bitter colonel undercuts the inspirational intentions.

Read the full review →
Empire
· Angie Errigo

The film is a contrived, overlong buddy picture that serves mostly as a showcase for Al Pacino's boisterous performance as the blind, acerbic Colonel Slade. It is predictable and unoriginal but still entertaining thanks to Pacino's knowing relish in the role.

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

The review notes Pacino's theatrical virtuoso turn but criticizes how the film indulgently stretches a modest conceit well past the breaking point.

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

The critic finds the film engrossing with powerful lead performances, particularly praising Al Pacino's nuanced and masterful portrayal of Frank Slade as deserving of his Oscar. They single out the strong chemistry and growth between the two leads, O'Donnell and Pacino.

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