Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

I came to this film expecting to see something transcendent. After all, the remake of Scent of a Woman with Al Pacino had been so wonderful. And I had never yet seen a Hollywood remake that even approached the original in quality. They are usually shattering disappointments.So I fully anticipated that Vittorio Gassman's version would far surpass Pacino's.But Surprise, Surprise. Finally. Who would have thought it. A Hollywood Remake that Ruled!!! Yay! It was not even a close contest, in my opinion. This film with Vittorio Gassman was for me flawed beyond redemption. I'm bewildered to read that it was even nominated for an Academy Award and has received other very prestigious awards.True, Gassman got the blind part of his role down. He had obviously done a lot of research and put in long rehearsals. And he had the potential to be great.The trouble was with the script. Gassman's character was a pig. An entertaining pig at times, an interesting pig at other times but never more than a full-fledged PIG.So while the film could engage you in the spectacle sense, it was really difficult to care about what happened to the characters or to root for them. The script just put them in a series of scenes, the common denominator being coarseness and then more coarseness.What was most offensive about this film were the scenes near the end in the Nepalese restaurant. Apparently Gassman had been friends with this family for many years -- since their daughters were children. So he was like a uncle figure.Then when this film catches up with them, the girls have grown into young ladies. And the Gassman character is shown treating them very disrespectfully (to put it mildly), exploiting them and preying on them.Except for the one he apparently loves. But why was it OK for him to exploit the other young girls? This predatory aspect of the film was so beyond offensive that it ruined the entire film and made it irredeemable and indefensible.Go see Al Pacino's Scent of a Woman instead. Pacino is brilliant. And the remake has heart and soul -- both of which are sorely absent from the original. The original has noisy drama but it is a hollow soulless drama.

It is some time since I have seen both versions of the film, but Dino Risi's original left an indelible mark, unlike the lightweight Hollywood incarnation. The dark, atmospheric "Profumo di Donna" showcases a powerful performance by Vitorrio Gassman - "non sono un leone" reverberates with the tragic realisation of a strong man defeated. Hollywood is so adept at picking a good story well told and churning it out in the familiar mould - big budget, big name lead - but, hey - horses for courses! Most English speaking viewers can't be discomfited to read subtitles and, unless a film is dubbed, would gladly deny its virtue.

"Profumo di dona"is not only an italian film with exuberant delight of life, it's the pride of Europe and european 7th Art. Why? Because of good playing, good production and of course good scenario. I don't know why American had to do a remake? Or perhaps european sensibility doesn't mean anything in USA? That film give us the opportunity to be happy as human being, to be happy to live. That's why cinema is so magic!

Even as I was trying to keep still and finish the movie, I was asking myself: is there any reason to watch this, admittedly strong and fresh in its time, film after one has seen the Hollywood remake with Al Pacino? The answer to me is 'no'. Unless you are a film school student or a movie buff exploring the phenomenon of the long-lasting, though rarely happy, romance that Hollywood seems to have with remaking older/foreign movies, there is nothing there for you. If you are, however, looking for an example of a successful remake to bolster your faith in Hollywood after such failed covers as "Father's Day", then this is the original for one of the best ones.Never once will you be as captivated by the story or performance as you are in the Al Pacino movie. The subtitles are-- well, they are the subtitles. They cater to our snob appeal but hardly add to the viewing experience. The character of the baby-faced, cigarette smoking, women-coveting boy is one-dimensional and boring, complete with thoughts read out loud by the narrator. The colonel is impressive, but then so is Pacino.This, of course, only makes sense to an English-speaking viewer familiar with the remake. I tried hard to put myself in the shoes of a "Scent of a Woman" virgin in order to do this movie justice. I failed. If you have not seen the remake, I recommend watching this original first.Briefly about the plot. A young army cadet is assigned to a retired blind colonel, who needs assistance in his cross country trip. The colonel teaches the boy a few life's lessons, before reaching his final destination, the cheerful sunny Naples, where his dark goal awaits him. A beautiful young girl, in love with the colonel since she was a child, will do anything to prevent him from carrying out his plan. Main differences from the remake: missing is the boy's school life (and, naturally, problems), but a nice and almost believable love story is present. The ending -- well, it's different.