Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

classicsoncall Prophecies of the Apocalypse and mysteriously dying monks make for an effective murder mystery thriller set in an isolated, Fourteenth Century Benedictine abbey. Sean Connery looks like he might have been made for the role of William von Baskerville, exuding a worldly wisdom to go with his venerable appearance. His young ward Adso (Christian Slater) does appear somewhat a lightweight by comparison, though the Franciscan brothers do complement each other quite well. The story turns on a virtually unknown sect called the Dolcinites, notorious for murdering wealthy priests and bishops who corrupted the Christian principles of poverty. An intriguing aspect of the story resulted in a debate on whether Christ owned the clothes he wore, something I've never even had occasion to consider before. Some of the story elements get a bit confusing and muddled, although the Sherlock Holmes type instincts of Brother William eventually discern the cause of deaths at the abbey, even if he has to place his own life in jeopardy at the hands of the Grand Inquisitor, Bernardo Gui (F. Murray Abraham). There's an effective sequence that takes place in the labyrinthine alleys of the abbey's secretive library, home to volumes of forbidden books and texts that their protector wishes to remain undiscovered. And there's a monumental test of Adso's vow of celibacy that he monumentally fails. Needless to say, this is an offbeat murder mystery in an offbeat setting, and made with an eye toward bump in the night creepiness. Say your prayers before and after watching.

Tweetienator I read the book written by Umberto Eco three or four times over the years and it is still an outstanding masterpiece - an exquisite thinker, a sharp and witty writer and someone with a great expertise in history, philosophy, and theology - not many writers have such an immense background they can use to make such a fine piece of literature. Like the book the movie directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud gives us a little glimpse into the life of people living in the Middle Ages. Sean Connery as William of Baskerville plays superb, Christian Slater as Adson of Melk is a rising star, and all the other actors play good to very good- a well-composed cast (not to mention Ron Perlman as a hunchbacked monk). The movie really got a feel of authenticity. The only aspect I have to complain about are some of the changes done regarding the book - well, imo they are no improvement - especially the almost happy-ending regarding the rose named girl (in the book it is indicated that she would burn with the two monks in Avignon after trial) and as Bernardo Gui (the inquisitor) is a historical person - he did not die in real life (and in the book) like in the movie depicted. Eichinger (the producer or whoever is responsible for those changes) did imo regarding the ending of the movie too much sugar-coating for the audience. For those unnecessary but important changes, I got at least to distract one or two points. Anyway - still a magnificent movie.

tankace The name of the Rose was adapted from the Uberto Eco novel of the same name and it is a monk and his pupil as they stay in a monastery in which shocking and strange death take place and it is up to William of Baskerville (Sean Connery) to find out what and why is happening.To begin with the script ,you know that it will be close to excellent as it from one of the best writers of the our time. The script as well as the characters in it are 100% fit in to the era ,a time in which life was usually hard and short, prejudice against anything that they couldn't explain was in every mind and the fear of God's Wrath was routed in everyone alive. Europe back then was quit different from the later centuries and nowadays we usually have little to no idea how was life back then and we unfairly simplify it to swords, battle, death and after the Renaissance. But here as with few occasions we see a widow in to the workings of this world.Continuouning Sean Connery gives us a monk who isn't as in line as the rest of his order, he is a man in love with the works of the Classicals and the idea of first reason then result and from his student Adso of Melk we see how odd that ideas were seen as almost magic. Now you may think that a monk to use these ideas in 1327 when the story takes place is inaccurate ,but the monasteries were basically the economic, cultural and educational centers of Europe then so person like William ,would exist here and there. The knowledge of the Classical period may was suppressed ,but the large portion of it was stored in monasteries all over the place, in order to be read by the bishops for understanding better the essence of God and then came a Martin Luther and the printing press and all that knowledge came out and the Reformation began. OK it wasn't as simple but that is the basic idea, for that William ideas aren't as out of place as they may seem. Also he is from Baskerville where centuries later another investigator would have a certain case with a dog ,or better a Hound if you will ;).One other fact ,which the film addresses is the power of the Catholic Church back then, which literally power over life and death and if you weren't in line with them then you were a heretic and death! To that I think Mr. Eco intentionally set the story in 1327 ,for if you a history buff like me, you definitely are familiar with a certain invent in not only European but World History, the spread of the Black Death which hit Europe in 1347, just two decades later. To put it differently this work ,is a representation of the might of the Catholic Chirch in its prime, just before the plaque came in and start its decline. If you don't like that thought , it is my speculation and my alone nothing official.All in all it is a great mystery would watching and thinking about and definitely check in out as this year marks its thirtieth anniversary!

SnoopyStyle Adso of Melk is an old man recalling a pivotal time during his youth. It's late 1327 in the dark north of Italy. Adso (Christian Slater) arrives at a Benedictine abbey with his mentor Franciscan friar William of Baskerville (Sean Connery) to argue the issue of the church's wealth. William is a Sherlock Holmes character with exceptional perception and deduction. The Abbot is trying to keep a recent death from William and wait for Inquisitor Bernardo Gui (F. Murray Abraham). William notices the fresh grave. It's a young manuscript illuminator whose work he admires. He and his young novice investigate the death but then others die. Adso has sex with a local girl. William befriends hunchback Salvatore (Ron Perlman) from a heretical sect. They discover a labyrinthine secret library as William's nemesis Gui arrives.The first time I watched this, it was a mess of confusing characters and ideas about the medieval world. The resolution is understandable. Solving the murder became secondary to trying to immerse in this world. It gets better the second time around. I'm sure the book is more in depth. The red herring needs more exposition time. Novel adaptation often has this problem. The setting has the foggy muddy part down. The secret library has plenty of stairways. The acting is solid. It takes a couple of times to ingest everything from the movie.