Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

dariuslanghoff THE SCENT OF MYSTERY was brought in 1960 by Mike Todd. It was a 70 mm Technicolor thriller made in the new process of "Smell-O-Vision". The scents used - which ranged from ozone, pipe tobacco, garlic and oil, to paint, pine, wood shavings and boot polish - were piped to each individual cinema seat on cue from the "smell-track" of the film.However, the first film officially made as "smelly" was a wide-screen travelogue about India called BEHIND THE GREAT WALL (1929). It premiered at the DeMille Theater in New York and was accompanied by 72 smells that included incense, smoke, burning pitch, oranges, spices and a barnyard of geese. The scents were circulated thought the ventilating system.

kosmasp This is very silly and should not under any circumstances be taken seriously. Any attempt to not follow that advice will lead into the inevitable result of you not liking the movie at all. Actually of you dreading the movie. And it's comedy might be considered poor taste, it's acting poor too.But it is silly and simple for a reason and it stays true to that formula til the end (even if it has hits and misses throughout). The main character with his conviction of knowing more than he actually does helps the movie a lot. Also Mr. Lorre in a role that we are not used seeing him, is great too. All in all, a crime comedy, that might not be something to really recommend ... But still funny to watch

whitesheik I love the IMDb. Where else can you get people commenting on a film they clearly haven't seen in the way it was first exhibited. Only one commenter claims to have seen it. The others saw a seventy-minute butchered version taped with a video camera aimed at a seventy-millimeter movie screen which is the ONLY time it ever aired on TV (in other words, it was never "sold" to TV). Scent of Mystery was a true oddity, but one I adored. The camera-work and sound recording were unbelievably brilliant, and the film was a lark. The smells were dispensed to each seat via a tube and by the time of the LA run they'd figured out how to "clean" the air between smells and it worked very well. As to Holiday in Spain, here we have people making comments when they clearly know not of what they speak. When Scent flopped big-time, it was sold to the Cinerama corporation. The film was converted into three-panel Cinerama, cut by twenty-five minutes (making its plot completely incoherent - of course, this is the version people are commenting on - well, not exactly - their commenting on the shortened version which was further shortened for its one-time TV showing), narration by Elliot was added (terrible), and the intermission point, which in the original was sublime, was moved up by twenty minutes and made no sense at all. Given that all but one of the commentators here have only seen the dreck that they showed on TV (completely faded print and missing sixty percent of its image), well, I find it a bit galling. The Todd AO image was and is stunning, the director of the film was the great cameraman, Jack Cardiff. And the sound - amazing eight track Todd-Belock sound system which, to my mind, has never been bettered. Not by Dolby, not by DTS, not by anything. And, just in case you think my memory may be faulty, I have just this day watched a seventy-millimeter print of the film, the shortened (but not as short as TV) Holiday in Spain - and that sound blew me away.So, at this time, Scent Of Mystery is a lost film. It's never even been printed down to 35mm. It is uncertain whether any 70mm elements survive for the uncut Scent - there are 70mm elements (and even YCMs) for Holiday in Spain. If the uncut neg can be found, I am here to tell you there are plans afoot for a DVD.

Anne_Sharp Some movies created to be used with in-theater tricks such as 3-D or Sensurround or whatever are entertaining to watch even without the gimmick. This isn't. The young Denholm Elliott makes a most unengaging leading man/narrator, and though Peter Lorre as his dirty old man sidekick perks things up a bit it's basically a low octane assemblage of corny gags and sub-Hitchcockian intrigue. Still, it's the film that inspired John Waters' classic Odorama classic "Polyester," which is quite a claim to fame in itself.