Rating: 
Summary: The Name of the Rose
Review: I own this movie on both VHS and DVD (Portugese audience, but with an English sound track). I've watched it several times and recommend the purchase of the DVD so you can do the same. Each time the film shows me something new, something deeper. To save space here, I will "ditto" the reviews above. Don't bother reading any film critics reviews of the film. I have and most them appear to have given the film a superficial viewing consequently missing the several threads running through it.
The Name of the Rose is more than a mystery book and film.
Rating:
Summary: The Name of the Rose
Review: Truly brilliant!
It is a tale of monastic mystery and 14th century catholic inquisition inevitably leading innocent people (...and truth) to the flames.
Great acting, even by young Christian Slater.
I don't know why it took so long for such a great film to make it to DVD. (...)
Rating:
Summary: One of the Best Sean Connery Movies Ever Made!!!
Review: This movie is based on the book of the same name by Umberto Eco and the movie does an EXCELLENT job of interpreting the book. The movie describes the events of a one-week period inside a monastery in Italy in the early 14th century. During this week, seven monks die in mysterious ways and somehow the deaths are tied into the life of the monastery and are also linked to the existence of forbidden books hidden away in the monastery's library. An extremely creative genius crafted this tale and the acting is superb. Sean Connery plays a visiting monk from the British Isles who is a product of the emerging renaissance - a scholar, a practicioner of logic, and even a former inquisitor. He begins to unravel the mystery of the deaths and also what is at the core of what has gone wrong in the monastery. The rest of the cast is great! My suggestion: find and read the book by Umberto Eco, and then watch the film. The film will bring the book to life and you will want to keep the DVD in your home library... Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: Great Medieval Thriller
Review: This review refers to the theatrical movie as the DVD is not available as of this writing. I do think it's worth buying on digital disc because it will be a widescreen version, which I don't think was/is available on VHS. The movie is based on the novel by Umberto Eco who is a master of arcana and esoterica. The novel, one of my true favorites, is richly detailed and atmospheric. The movie tries to capture that dark, ominous, medieval atmosphere and succeeds admirably. This is a superb thriller about the investigation of mysterious deaths in a monastery during a bleak winter in the 14th century. Sean Connery is simply wonderful as the Sherlock Holmes-like sleuth. Even Christian Slater, a very young Christian Slater, does a fine job. The movie can be slow at times, especially at the beginning, but once it kicks off, it is utterly compelling. The ambiance is like a cape that just wraps and draws you into the mystery. To say more would be giving it away. Highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: A good rendition of the book
Review:
I had just finished the book, and was so taken with it that I had to see the movie. Particularly since Sean Connery was playing William of Baskerville, which, it seemed to me, was excellent casting.
I got the book from one of Amazon's used book suppliers. It is out-of-print and unavailable new. Anytime a film is made from a book--particularly a long book, like this one--a great many compromises must be made. So it was here. But, although there were many facts and scenes left out, and the story line was significantly condensed and changed at both the beginning and the end, the gist of the book was retained, and it was definitely an entertaining film. Two changes from the book I appreciated: the fact that the Inquisitor, Bernard Gui, got his, and the fact that the girl was saved from the stake. Thanks, Hollywood. A good story. I recommend it. Umberto Eco is a great writer. I'm currently reading his Foucault's Pendulum. Joseph (Joe) Pierre
author of Handguns and Freedom...their care and maintenance
and other books
Rating:
Summary: Three geniuses
Review: This won't take two much.
"The Name of the Rose" is one of the best movies ever.It is a shame, a real shame, that so many "stars" in the show busines never talk about this obscure "incident" of hiding this movie from the world. I don't like to make sugestive coments, but I can't avoid wandering. The only bizarre moment in this movie is precisely being unknown for so many people.
The three genious I refeer are the autor: Humberto Eco, one of the greatest semiologists of our time, Jean Jacqes Annaud, a sophisticated, super creative director, and the best actor on stage Mr Sean Connery.
Do you need more??
Carlos
Rating:
Summary: Aristotle Beckons Your Misbegotten Soul.....
Review: Staircase gothic concubines of Escher weave a web of medieval mystery, as monastic murder paves the road to enlightenment, and heretics rape the halls of the divine. Grand Inquisitors light their pyres, and misshappen monks shift in the shadows, as the night air tickles the imagination. Instead of coke-sniffing harridans and violent thugs, we have men of the cloth embroiled in intellectual conspiracy, and the highest level of arousal is derived from books. Yes, "Name of the Rose" is for those who cherish the printed word, not mediocre music and Playstation. Sean Connery is delight incarnate as William of Baskerville, the Sherlock Holmes of the Franciscan Order. Christian Slater as the impressionable apprentice radiates a youthful intelligence, and F. Murray Abraham holds scant screen time clenched in his teeth. Jean-Jacques Annaud, I formally commend you for offering an alternative for those for who've advanced beyond "Dick and Jane".
And Ron Pearlman does Quasimodo proud.
Rating: 
Summary: For some odd reason...
Review: This is one of those movies that is obviously better than the ordinary, but is a 3 1/2 star movie that still only gets two star reviews from 99% of the critics that review it, and it isn't even directed by Ridley Scott!
The setting is 14th century Alpine Italy, a monastery full of oddball monks, some deformed, most of temperaments and philosophies that put them at odds with the general Roman Catholic church. The monastery also houses one of the greatest libraries extant in the day. Into this setting comes William of Baskerville and his young apprentice, Adso. Baskerville is a former Inquisition monk who has become specialized in detective work. The abbott of the monastery wants him to get to the bottom of an unsettling mystery that has taken the lives of at least one young novitiate amongst them. Sean Connery plays this monk softer than he has played any other role I can remember seeing him in, with the possible exception of Robin and Marian's Locksley. Christian Slater plays his young apprentice, the son of the Baron of Melk. They are aided by a cast of supporting characters that would turn most casting directors green with envy, not the least of which is Ron Perelman as the wretched Salvatore, a hunchback monk who looks like he never bathes, whose hair is ratty beyond belief, possesses one tooth and has the run of the monastery. It's a wonder Perelman didn't win an Oscar for this performance, because to this day, it's the best one he's ever given! Another excellent actor is the one who plays "Venerable Jorge", Feodor Chaliapin, and he also turns in an Oscar-worthy performance. F. Murray Abraham also turns in a good performance, perhaps not as good as "Salieri" from "Amadeus", but nonetheless, it is the only substantial, DECENT role I've seen him in SINCE "Amadeus"! Set design easily has you believing you're in the 14th century...there are NO anachronisms, (eyeglasses were about a hundred years old at the time!) The music, by the inimitable James Horner, who can do NO wrong, is appropriately eerie and portentous and every supernumerary actor is hand picked for ambient authenticity. Be warned, though, there is a LOT of implied latent homosexuality in this movie...thank God there's a rather steamy hetero lovemaking scene in the middle of it! (g) Perhaps tween aged boys should not see this movie. (I guarantee a MAJOR case of the "creeps" if they do!) I have not read Umberto Eco's book, and from I gather, the movie gets away from the original story somewhat, but as a stand-alone work, this is one of the great underrated movies of the eighties, right up there with "Legend", "Blade Runner", "Return to OZ" and "Dune".
Rating:
Summary: An excellent medieval thriller
Review: This film has its share of detractors. Most of them have read and liked Umberto Eco's novel which forms the basis for this film. The typical appraisal is that the atmospheric look is great, the cast is good, but that the plot intolerably "dumbs down" the book.
The book exhaustively deals with medieval politics within rival Catholic orders. Yes, the film pares down this controversial yet potentially tedious theme. It does so in a cautious way however. In Eco's novel, none of the orders look heroic, yet the Franciscans look the least dishonorable, whereas the Dominicans look deplorable. The film simplifies that to a conflict between fairly honorable Franciscans versus a poorly identified antagonist (Jesuits? Dominicans? guess).
Some criticize a sexually explicit scene. It has a counterpart in the book however, and is fitting.
The key change in the film is its rousing pyrotechnic finish, rather than Eco's depressing denoument. That chiefly reflects the conflict between American and European dramatic expectations.
Rating: 
Summary: Great sets - dumbed down story
Review: It seems the producers of this movie began with the best intentions, but somewhere along the line things went badly awry. Based (rather loosely) on Umberto Eco's rich, complex and finely researched novel, it was inevitable that the vast detail and obscure references which make the book such a complex delight were going to fall by the wayside in a movie adaptation. But, to their great credit, the producers did make a great effort to get the look and feel of the film right. Unlike virtually every other film set in the Middle Ages, this one actually manages to make the costumes, sets and props accurate. In fact, this movie is one that any medievalist can freeze frame to look with delight and recognition at the detail of accurate manuscripts, carvings and artefacts, many of which are accurate reproductions of well known museum pieces. The story and dialogue, on the other hand, struggles to maintain a balance between Hollywood conventions and the accurate vision of the period detailed in Eco's book. And in the end the movie seems to abandon even the attempt to do so and charges off into Hollywood fantasy land. For the first half of the story, however, it seems the screenwriters had the novel by their side and were guided by it. Some stupid and inaccurate cliches intrude - usually in the form of simplistic blanket condemnation of the medieval church. Most of the richness and complexity of Eco's novel is swamped by the surface story - the murder mystery - but this is entertaining and generally well handled. But halfway through the film Bernado Gui turns up and the whole movie careens wildly off the rails. Throwing the novel, with its balanced, wry, wise and well-researched balanced view of the good and bad in medieval religion, completely out the window, the movie becomes a string of cliches and caricatures. Gui is, of course, a vile and souless Inquisitor. He parades around the country with Nazi-like knights and a cart full of torture equipment, like a member of a medieval Gestapo. The debate on the poverty of Christ - a key social, religious and political issue - is dismissed as obscurantist nonsense and then played for laughs. Then there is a witch trial (of course), torture (of course) and some burnings at the stake (of course) which triggers a peasant revolt against the forces of religious oppression (of course). Apart from pandering to modern prejudices and erroneously simplistic ideas about medieval Christianity, none of these things are in the book or even vaguely necessary to the story, but it seems Hollywood can't help itself. Still, judging from the review below which declares, on the basis of some twisted Sunday School version of the history of the Catholic Church, that this is what the medieval Church was actually like, it seems some in the audience appreciated having their prejudices about the period confirmed. Anyone who actually knows and understands the period and the richness and complexity of the medieval Church will, on the other hand, regret the wasted opportunity to actually depict this for a change, instead of this riot of nonsense. Considering a balanced and well-researched alternative was at hand, in the very book the screenwriters were supposedly adapting, their choice is even more odd and regretable. (And no, in case you are wondering, I am not a Catholic or a Christian - though I am a medieval historian) The silly Hollywood ending and pointless bigotry aside, this is a highly entertaining murder mystery which *looks* amazing. Connery is ... well ... Connery, and brings William of Baskerville to life. Christian Slater plays the wide-eyed innocent novice Adso well and the cavalcade (or freak show) of, shall we say, "distinctive" looking monks are represented by some fine actors, including a slimy Michael Lonsdale as the avaricious abbot and the always amazing Ron Perlman as the deformed heretic Salvatore. And don't miss the sex scene in the kitchen. ;> In short, an entertaining murder mystery, but it's small wonder that Eco distanced himself from this "version" of his book. The titles say it's a "palimpsest" of the novel - ie a piece of parchment where the original text is scraped clean and reused with some of the original still fainly visible. It would have been a great movie is more of the original could have been seen. Unfortunately this is simply a run-of-the-mill costume detective drama with some silly cliches about the Middle Ages as its climax. Fantastic sets and costumes though. "Penetentziagite!"
| 
