robertocacciaglia

Why did they even think another adaptation of this multilayered and fascinating novel was necessary? The 1986 movie did justice to the book (granted, they're two different thin, as usual). So many secondary storyline come to prominence than on can hardly recognise the original. Did not like any of the actors, and Turturro is way too 'earthly' compared to the hermetic Connery as William of Baskerville. I must confess I'm not sure I'll be able to stand this through to the end of the series. Having read the book no less than three times, I was just curious to see what a new adaptation would bring: not much, in fact. Highly irritating!

I am aware there'll be criticism on many accounts, but this is got to be the greatest movie ever made. Actors, story, filmography and musical score are all legendary now. I was 6 when I first saw it at the cinema in the early 60s and I haven't missed any of the several comebacks over the following years until the mid 70s. DVD is a different experience so, if they happen to show it somewhere, don't miss the opportunity.

The main problem with historical movies is that the script rarely reflects what could be said in any historical period without sounding odd or downright out of place. One is already making an effort trying to accept the very contemporary face of the handsome Joseph Fiennes and other blue eyed actors when hearing the tribune say to Pilate: 'give me a week' is frankly comical.

Pasolini's Gospel According to Matthew comes to my mind as an example of accuracy insofar as it never strikes as artificial. The reason being that every dialogue was to be found in the original text, nothing else added. Now, I understand that in this movie most of the dialogue had to be made up from scratch, but the the screenwriter should have been more careful doing some research before mentioning 'a week' - or even 7 days for that matter.