The Name of the Rose

I've been enjoying films for 20 years now, and this is the first comment I've put on any film website. I've always had the mickey taken out of me for loving this film, and it's right up there amongst my favourites of a very eclectic bunch. Why? Well, firstly and I have to say, very importantly, it's taken from the finest piece of modern literature I've read. Umberto Eco's novel has such mammoth scope of subject matter and detail, it is was always going to be extremely hard to put into film (Dune anyone??), and Annaud certainly doesn't succeed in every way, but my lord he gives it a damn good go. The film quite rightly focusses on the human story within the book of a group of murders committed at an Italian abbey in the 14th Century, and the ongoing search for the purpetrator, by a Franciscan monk and his apprentice. The book encompasses many other issues and plotlines, which could not be fitted into the film. The three screenwriters do an excellent job, of filming the almost impossible to within 2 hours or so. Most importantly to me, the cinematography and set are sublime, almost unsurpassed in modern film to my mind, and still to this day amazing. I've always found that many non movie-lovers remember this film, for good or bad. The main reason for me is that it recreates so impressively the period it represents. Tonino Delli Colli, I salute you. The production team deserves a similar merit for bringing together what was in essence an European co-production, whilst not forgetting the biggest exterior set built in Europe since "Cleopatra". Step forward Dante Ferreti. I salute you too. 0.1 of a mark off for the editing, but let's not dwell on that. The acting is, bar none, marvellous, with even Christian Slater in his first main role putting up an extremely decent stab of being an apprentice monk.

I like a good whodunnit, but I adore a whodunnit which throws in the visual magnificence of a different age, top notch performances, a script taken from a extraordinary source, and assured directing. 10 out of 10, and my mates can carry on taking the mickey out of me.

So in summary, I'll leave it to the director himself.. `When I see a film, I love it when I'm entertained, when I care for the actors, when I share their emotions, when I'm scared, when I'm in love, but also if I learn a little something, if I have the feeling that I haven't seen something before, and that's what `The Name of the Rose' has.'

In medieval times William of Baskerville (Sean Connery) and his young helper Adso (Christian Slater) try to solve murders at a remote abbey. Most of the monks there think it's the Devil at work but William thinks it may be a human. What follows is a VERY complex and long but intriguing movie.

I read the book ages ago. It was an excellent book but I didn't see how it could ever be a movie. It was very long and had tons of theological discussions. The movie throws out most of the discussions, simplifies the story (but doesn't talk down to the viewer) and moves things along as quickly as possible. The mystery is deep and puzzling but I figured it out. During the last hour or so F. Murray Abraham shows up an Inquisitor and things really get out of hand. Still I was never lost.

The setting itself is bleak and remote perfectly fitting the tone of the movie. The acting is great. Connery just acts up a storm in a very pleasing, easy-going manner. Abraham takes his role and runs with it. You hate him every step of the way. Slater is given little to work with but he's still good. This is not for everybody. It portrays a somewhat realistic view of what an abbey would have looked like. It looks dirty and most of the monks look ugly and most have teeth missing! This is not a movie to watch if you want a pleasant feel-good movie. However it's great for people who don't mind the grimness and love a good mystery with theological digressions.. Recommended.

I remember this film made a huge impression on me when I first saw it in the cinema almost 20 years ago. I think I watched it three times in a couple of months. Recently, I purchased the DVD and my memory did not prove me wrong, the film is still great. It is a quite free adaption of Umberto Eco's novel, and if you have just recently read it, you may be irritated by all the deviations from the story of the book. But it is important to remember that to fit a 600-page, quite academic novel into a two-hour movie one just have to make adjustments. In fact, I have to admit that I think the movie is superior to the book. The book is very good indeed, but to my taste slightly too dry. The movie is perhaps more "shallow", but it has a totally unique atmosphere and an exciting plot. Sean Connery does one of his best, if not the best, role as a combination of Sherlock Holmes and a medieval philosopher. Very entertaining indeed! If you buy the DVD, the extra material is almost as interesting as the movie itself. The almost two-hour interview with the director Annaud is very inspiring, and he really comes over as almost a renaissance man. Very thoughtful, yet energetic and with a real purpose to his work. I remember when I first saw the movie, that I felt I had never seen any movie which so convincingly pictured life in the middle ages. When we hear about all the painstaking work that went into making the movie historically correct, this is no surprise.

The film opens in 1327, with a Franciscan monk and his young novice arriving to a remote abbey in the dark north of Italy to participate in a crucial debate between the emissaries of Pope John XXII and leaders of the Franciscan order, to decide whether the church should take vows of poverty or wealth...

After a series of murders—attributed to the presence of a supernatural force— that are taking place within the cold walls of the godforsaken battlement, Brother William of Baskerville (Connery) ends up undertaking an investigation to solve the secrets surrounding these unexplainable crimes… All of them bearing blackened fingers and blackened tongues…

What follows, brings William face to face with Bernardo Gui (F. Murray Abraham), the sadistic Grand inquisitor—appointed by the Pope to hunt down and free the Church of heretics—who sees the abbey enshrouded in a terrifying mystery and the devil roaming behind every foul deed… Gui burns every last suspected devil-worshipper in the village, forcing Baskerville to uncover the truth before innocent blood is shed…

As always, Connery lends dignity, intelligence as the acute and prudent monk who has knowledge, both of the human spirit and the wiles of the evil one… Connery plays his role with gusto…

Newcomer Christian Slater plays Connery's faithful sidekick, Adso, the youngest son of the Baron of Melk who sure does like to watch his master at work… One night—expressing fear and confusion— he gets feminine carnal delights from a peasant girl, 'a creature that rose like the dawn, was bewitching as the moon, radiant as the sun, terrible as an army poised for battle…'

For a moment, Ron Perlman steals the show as the heretical hunchbacked monk named Salvatore who is ugly yet phenomenal… His scenes with Abraham are stirring…

"The Name of the Rose" is atmospheric, but disturbing at many levels… Some might say, contradictory, leaving plenty of twists and turns unresolved and unexplained, but the film was a smash hit in Europe… Annaud succeeds in capturing the claustrophobia and panic of being truly lost in the menacing, creepy Dark Ages

If you like movies to send you back to another historical period, there are few which can do it more effectively than this one. The period is pre-enlightenment when the only books in the land (Italy) are owned by the different denominations of the Catholic faith. Inquisitions are the order of the day and the atmosphere of mistrust and misrepresentation which accompany such a fragile state, is expertly realised.

Enter Sean Connery playing a Sherlock Holmes (`…Elementary my dear Wat-shun…') from the dark/middle ages, replete with a magnifying glass of sorts and a recognisable system of logical deduction. The story is a fine balance of complexity (easy enough to follow, but not too simplistic) with the inclusion of a number of sub-plots to keep it all ticking along nicely. The acting is very good but what makes it stand out is its evocation of another era, which is reproduced with authority. Highly enjoyable.