"Scent of a Woman"

I heard the name of this movie a long time ago, but I have never <em>tried to watch(?)</em> it before <em>(why 'tried' - simpler to say just 'seen it' and no need for 'before' - it's implied)</em>. Its name sounds a bit girly to me, because I am <em>definitely</em>/really a dedicated/fanatical science-fiction guy who loves movies such as the Matrix, X-Men, and Independence Day. However, today I watched this movie twice<em> in a row</em>/in one sitting. Do you want to know why?

First of all, Al Pacino, the main actor in this movie, is very outstanding. He was acts a retired army ranger, injured and blinded in a war. His lines are concise and full of philosophyies. But sometimes he was speaking spoke so fast that I could not follow him, and Thus I had to rewind a bit and little to listen carefully to him again.

Secondly, this movie is not girly at all. It has almost has nothing to do with women, though, for several times/on several occasions, Al Pacino did tell speak of/describe the scent of women he came across. This movie is all about the integrity. It tells people that we should never sell anybody out to by our for the sake of our own(?) future, and that is the a quality what we should seek in our leaders should be made of.

Scent of a Woman

I heard the name of this movie a long time ago, but I have had (As of when you are writing this, you have watched the movie, but you hadn't until you did.  Therefore, have needs to be in the past-tense, had) never tried to watch it before. Its name sounds (you could also put this into the past-tense [Its name sounded] because you no longer think it's girls, right?  Also, good job getting it's/its correct. :) ) a bit girly to me, because I am definitely a science-fiction guy who loves movies such as the Matrix, X-Men, and Independence Day. However, today I watched this movie twice in a row. Do you want to know why?

First of all, Al Pacino, the main actor in this movie, is very (outstanding is superlative enough.  Very outstanding is technically correct, but it sounds really weird to a native ear.) outstanding. He was played (Al Pacino, the actualy person, has never been a retired army ranger, but in the movie he plays one.  What you put technically works, but it could lead to confusion.) a retired army ranger, injured and blinded in a war. His lines are concise and full of philosophies philosophy (philosophy is like people where, because it's a group [for people a group of persons, for philosophy a group of though patterns/assumptions/architectonics of meaning] it is almost never used in the plural, though there are times where "peoples" or "philosophies" will be appropriate, your best guess is almost always "philosophy"). But some times he was speaking (this is technically correct, but "spoke" so "he spoke so fast..." sounds more natural to my ear.) so fast that I could not follow him. Thus, (needs a comma) I had to rewind a bit and listen carefully to him again.

Secondly, this movie is not girly at all. It almost has nothing to do with women, though, for several times, Al Pacino did tell the scent of women he came across. This movie is all about the integrity. It tells people that we should never sell anybody out to buy our future, and thatis the quality what leaders should be made of. (It's clear what you're going for here, but you're combining a couple different options into one that doesn't work.  You could say:

and that this is what leaders should have
and that is what leaders should be made of
and this is what leaders should be made of
and that this is what leaders should be made of
and that this is the quality all leaders should have
etc.  There are many other options here.)

I hope this helps.  Cheers.  (Also, this isn't spell-checked so there's a good chance I have some typos xP)