In his 2008 book, Film and philosophy: Taking movies seriously, philosopher Daniel Shaw explores the question: Can one “do” philosophy in a film? We are quite comfortable with the idea of philosophical works being in a written format, but what would it mean to have a film which is philosophical? Shaw argues that it is possible for films to be philosophical, although very few films even attempt to do this. In this paper, I want to explore the more focused question of whether and how a film can “do” philosophy of perception. Given that film is specifically a visual and auditory medium, how does this affect what philosophical work films can do with respect to perception more generally? Related to this is the question of how film can be used to portray and explain the myriad non-human animal senses and neuroatypical sensory abilities that science has discovered. How successful can film be in depicting what it is like to perceive the world as science explains that a tick does or as a synesthetic person does?