The Name of the Rose

Totally agree with every word of trademarcdesigns review so I save the effort. They ruined Turturro's project. By the way he is the best of the series by large

After watching the first episode I was extremely disappointed. Sure the costumes were wonderful and helpful in providing atmosphere but the writers decisions left me bored and disinterested. Umberto Eco's story was both pictorial and gripping yet the writers in this mess dilute it to such an extent that I kept thinking that there was something else I should be doing. Even when they strictly stick to the word's spoken by William of Baskerville and Adso it feels forced and artificial. As far as I'm concerned this conception of The Name of the Rose is mostly a fail.

The Name of the Rose is a series based on the novel by Umberto Eco. This is an ambitious effort that has clearly seen no expense spared.

The result is an intriguing and enjoyable series, that blends Renaissance politics with a crime drama. Everything of the period is infused with a religiosity that is not only philosophical but also highly political. The church and state were inseparable and this point is driven home by the fact the key figure, a Franciscan friar is both giver of religious truths, as well as an arbiter of temporal justice.

Perhaps the closest counterpart to this series I can think of is 1990's production Cadfael, set in an earlier medieval period. So far The Name of the Rose is shaping up to offer something similar but whether it will be as polished as this earlier drama remains to be seen.

Beyond this the acting is best described as solid to excellent from all of the cast and the stories are well told. I do think its quite an accomplishment to take a book of this kind and transform it into a series.

So far The Name of the Rose looks promising. 7/10 from me.

A lot of money has been spent on this production, and it shows. John Turturro is great, as always, and the supporting cast includes stalwarts such as Sebastian Koch, Rupert Everett, and Michael Emerson. But you might want to hold off on making the popcorn. The Name of the Rose is a big book, but Jean-Jacques Annaud showed us that it's possible to present it on film in just a couple of hours or so; nevertheless, this series has been expanded to 8 one-hour episodes. You might expect the producers would want to explore plot points from the book in greater detail, but that hasn't really happened. Instead the writers have been busy updating Eco's masterpiece to speak more directly to contemporary issues. In the first two episodes (all I've seen of the series), you can tick off feminism, immigration, torture, gay rights--you name it (perhaps your time would be better spent at the microwave after all). When it focuses on Eco's story, the series can be riveting, and I'm eager to learn more about the library. So what if Damian Hardung as Adso of Melk seems to belong to a different century?--that was also the impression I had of Christian Slater as Adso in Annaud's 1986 film, and it didn't ruin the story for me. John Turturro, on the other hand, is perfect as William of Baskerville, even if we won't be forgetting Sean Connery right away, and there's nary a hint of a Brooklyn accent in his delivery. So I guess I'm in for the long haul.

That's it. Watch the tv series and be yourself the critic. You should trust yourself to see it this adaptation is good or not.

That being said, I'd like to say that I've read the book on which these series is based, a monumental thriller set on the middle ages by the master Umberto Eco. I've seen the first two episodes, and I find myself thinking this is a nice start. Strangely to me, I come to see the reviews on this site and I'm baffled. Honestly, I really don't know what they saw. John Turturro is a great William of Baskerville and overall the setting is good. There is a bit of cgi on the landscapes, but mixed properly with real life places that look beautiful. Don't let these people misguide you, who knows what interests do they seek.