Il nome della rosa

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

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.

Umberto Eco's novel has something of a reputation as one of the great unread bestsellers. To have it on the shelf in the early eighties was a fashion statement as much as it was a literary necessity. And yet when the film was released, it was attacked for being an ineffective adaptation. Turning the 600-page novel, a detective mystery enriched by descriptions of medieval life and semiotic ruminations characteristic of Eco's academic writings, into a mainstream two-hour movie was, of course, ambitious. Four credited screenwriters and an international co-production gave off a sense of struggle and indecision. The movie was, and remains, easy to deride.

It's true that the film, directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud, has to skip, or skirt, much of Eco's detail - the famous pages-long description of the doorway, for example, is acknowledged by a few camera shots - but it takes the novel's literary strengths and offers a cinematic equivalent: a vivid depiction of monastic life which thrusts the viewer into the period of the story. In this respect, the production is exemplary: cinematographer Tonino Delli Colli, art director Dante Ferretti and composer James Horner were all operating at the top of their game.

And, as Renton in Trainspotting (1996) knows, Sean Connery proved a perfect choice as William of Baskerville, the 14th-century Sherlock Holmes figure investigating the deaths in an Italian monastery. It's one of Connery's best performances, a happy marriage of character acting and star casting: he suits the physical description of William and he properly conveys the character's wisdom, caution and sense of regret. Christian Slater's Adso, the narrator of the novel, is a surrogate for the viewer, expressing bafflement at the mystery story and awe at William's deductive powers; while F. Murray Abraham works wonders with the underwritten part of the inquisitor Bernardo Gui.

The Name of the Rose is one of the most underrated movies of the eighties. That it wasn't brilliant should not detract from the fact that it's as good as it is.

Der Name der Rose is by all means a great film. The story is an excellent mix of Sherlock Holmes-type crime thriller and religious criticism/commentary. I found this to be exceptional as the book was labeled as impossible to remake as a film and while the book is indeed better than the film, the film is certainly not without its charms.

First of all the cast is pretty much perfect. Reading the book Sean Connery wasn't who I had in mind as the character but he certainly makes the character his own. His performance is for lack of a better word unique. He brings his usual indescribable something to the character which makes him almost instantly likable and believable. He delivers his lines in a confident manner that suits the character. Like in many other of his films his character is a teacher character but he does not seem to berate his pupil (Christian Slater) but allows him to grow on his own merely nudging him along. Even though not my first choice to have played the character I cannot find any other who would suit the part after seeing the film. Christian Slater plays the protagonist in what must be described as his break through character. His inexperience as an actor shows and once again suits the character who is also quite inexperienced in many ways. He portrays the change and ultimate conflicts of his character well enough and like Connery makes the character his own. Michael Lonsdale is pretty good as well and even though the character is not as well defined as in the book he provides the broad strokes in a satisfactory manner. Feodor Chaliapin Jr. does an excellent job in bringing Jorge to life and matches Connery's authority in their scenes together but once again the character is done in pretty broad strokes and you only get a small taste of what the character was like in the book. F. Murray Abraham's character is not like in the book and even though I was slightly disappointed by the film's portrayal of the character I understand why it was necessary to change the character for dramatic purposes. Ron Perlman who has since gone on to become quite a big star has a small role in this film and he does a decent job.

The film thrives on its complex story (which is nowhere near as complex as in the book) and deep characterization of the main characters who are about as defined as characters can become without internal monologue. There is voice-over by the older version of Christian Slater's character but is basically only used in the introduction and end part of the film and at a few crucial moments. The fantastic characterization is also helped by the incredibly sharp and well written dialog which never gets boring or forced like you could have feared given the religious content. In many scenes the dialog was in fact so good that I got the chills. The film focuses mainly on the mystery elements but the religious elements of the film are somehow weaved into the overall plot but there were plenty more of these religious elements and factors in the book. Overall I think the film should have been at least 15 minutes longer to get more of these elements in but maybe thats just me. However, all the most important plot points (and a few sub-plots) are covered so in that sense the film is successful.

Another thing that works very well is the atmosphere of the film which is very tense and mysterious. The tension is helped by the music which like so many other things in the film is quite unique and fitting. The set work is pretty simple but as it is a monastery you cannot expect the most flamboyant of sets. The sets work in their simplicity, however, and there is really no point of critique to be found in the set work. The lighting is kept at a minimum as well and once again this works in favor of the film as it adds to the overall tension. Sometimes the lighting is a little to dark but it happens so rarely that its not really a problem.

All in all Der Name der Rose (or The Name of the Rose) is a wonderful film but what drags the film down ever so slightly is that it can some times feel a little rushed because of the amount of material it is covering and there were a few elements from the book I would have liked to have seen in the film. In general, however, the cross from book to film is very well done and the overall plot is very well depicted with many tense, frightening and interesting moments. The film is definitely one of Connery's best and it is mainly because of his performance that I am giving the film a 9 in stead of an 8

9/10

The Name of the Rose undertakes an incredibly challenging project, aiming to bring to the big screen a massive book by Umberto Eco of immense complexity: Medieval history, theology, disputes among internal factions within the church, the intricate issues of medieval heresies as a social phenomenon, literature and art. All of this encapsulated within an investigation into mysterious murders in an Italian abbey in 1327 AD.

Anyone who has read Umberto Eco's book knows how detailed the author is in portraying these complex aspects, which are no longer obvious or easily understandable for a contemporary reader. Umberto Eco certainly has his own opinions on these themes, but still manages to paint a very authentic literary picture of that era.

Does the film achieve the same? No.

The casting is wonderful, especially Connery, but young Adso, played by Slater, is also well interpreted. The film focuses on the story of the investigation, which is undoubtedly the thread that ties the narrative together.

What bothers me most about this film is the depiction of the monastery and that distant medieval era, far from the historical reality described by Eco: The monks are mostly grotesque figures, dirty, crazy, deformed, obscene. The common folk, on the other hand, seem like a bunch of monkeys incapable of speaking, eating garbage thrown out of the monastery. The atmosphere always seems dark and devoid of light, as if to represent that era. This is a cinematic stereotype of the Middle Ages that is far from historical reality.

Monasteries were places where manuscripts were safeguarded, transcribed, and translated for centuries, without which we wouldn't have been able to read them today. The period of the High Middle Ages, in which the story takes place, was a time of great innovation for the era: agricultural innovations, the flourishing of universities, advancements in mathematics and civil engineering that allowed the construction of the marvelous Gothic architecture we can still admire today, infrastructure development.

We can't look back today and judge that era through contemporary lenses. Many concepts and innovations required time to develop before reaching us. What may seem obvious to us today was not so at the time, so it's necessary to empathize with the mentality of that era to understand its various nuances. Eco tries to do this in his book, but the film does not. The film settles for using clichés and a false stereotype of the Middle Ages.

The film manages to maintain tension and an interesting story, mainly because it follows the intriguing investigative plot of the original material. In this sense, it is certainly worth watching. However, I would still recommend to those who enjoyed this film to read the book.