If you like movies to send you back to another historical period, there are few which can do it more effectively than this one. The period is pre-enlightenment when the only books in the land (Italy) are owned by the different denominations of the Catholic faith. Inquisitions are the order of the day and the atmosphere of mistrust and misrepresentation which accompany such a fragile state, is expertly realised.

Enter Sean Connery playing a Sherlock Holmes (`…Elementary my dear Wat-shun…') from the dark/middle ages, replete with a magnifying glass of sorts and a recognisable system of logical deduction. The story is a fine balance of complexity (easy enough to follow, but not too simplistic) with the inclusion of a number of sub-plots to keep it all ticking along nicely. The acting is very good but what makes it stand out is its evocation of another era, which is reproduced with authority. Highly enjoyable.

A murder mystery set in a monastery in the late middle ages, at a time when the Franciscan order and the Holy Inquisition were at odds, mostly over the extravagances of the Papacy, is a dark and moody film, which matches the period of the story well. Once again Sean Connery takes a difficult role and makes it uniquely his. Fifteen year old Christian Slater is seen in his breakout role. But the real star of the film is the library of the monastery, a labyrinthine building that is many floors high and created with stairways that seem to always lead away from where you want to go. I found the book, frankly tedious. Umberto Eco writes in a style that is very pedantic at times, and just plain confusing at others. But the story translated well to the screen, but you must be willing to exhaust a little brain sweat to get anything out of the story. Be well rested before you watch this one.

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.

I've been enjoying films for 20 years now, and this is the first comment I've put on any film website. I've always had the mickey taken out of me for loving this film, and it's right up there amongst my favourites of a very eclectic bunch. Why? Well, firstly and I have to say, very importantly, it's taken from the finest piece of modern literature I've read. Umberto Eco's novel has such mammoth scope of subject matter and detail, it is was always going to be extremely hard to put into film (Dune anyone??), and Annaud certainly doesn't succeed in every way, but my lord he gives it a damn good go. The film quite rightly focusses on the human story within the book of a group of murders committed at an Italian abbey in the 14th Century, and the ongoing search for the purpetrator, by a Franciscan monk and his apprentice. The book encompasses many other issues and plotlines, which could not be fitted into the film. The three screenwriters do an excellent job, of filming the almost impossible to within 2 hours or so. Most importantly to me, the cinematography and set are sublime, almost unsurpassed in modern film to my mind, and still to this day amazing. I've always found that many non movie-lovers remember this film, for good or bad. The main reason for me is that it recreates so impressively the period it represents. Tonino Delli Colli, I salute you. The production team deserves a similar merit for bringing together what was in essence an European co-production, whilst not forgetting the biggest exterior set built in Europe since "Cleopatra". Step forward Dante Ferreti. I salute you too. 0.1 of a mark off for the editing, but let's not dwell on that. The acting is, bar none, marvellous, with even Christian Slater in his first main role putting up an extremely decent stab of being an apprentice monk.

I like a good whodunnit, but I adore a whodunnit which throws in the visual magnificence of a different age, top notch performances, a script taken from a extraordinary source, and assured directing. 10 out of 10, and my mates can carry on taking the mickey out of me.

So in summary, I'll leave it to the director himself.. `When I see a film, I love it when I'm entertained, when I care for the actors, when I share their emotions, when I'm scared, when I'm in love, but also if I learn a little something, if I have the feeling that I haven't seen something before, and that's what `The Name of the Rose' has.'

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

A number of people have commented on the similarity of this film, and the Novel by Umberto Eco, to the DaVinci Code. For those who were not born then, The Name of the Rose was published in 1980, thus predating DaVinci by about 20 or more years. I must admit that I found DaVinci to be a mass market popularization of Eco's theme, in short a "rip off". Still, it may be the popularity of Brown's novel which has resulted in Name of the Rose being brought back in a DVD version, and for that I am truly thankful.

For a film which was not favorably reviewed by the critics, it is surprising how many reviewers 20 years later are giving it a 10. Either the film wore well or tastes have changed. I loved the film first time around and was delighted to find it on DVD. Certainly the screenplay had to deviate from the philosophizing of the book. It would have been almost unwatchably "talkie" had it not, and those of us who want to read the sermons/discussions can read the book. The film stands on it's own.

The most ominous feeling for me, living in the religious and politically free thinking 21st century, was the realization that the church had such a grip on every aspect of life and thinking in the middle ages, and that any perceived repudiation of accepted Church dogma was deemed heresy and punishable by torture and a horrible death. That one group of people should wield such power, and the length they would go to to hold on to that power is truly frightening. The rigid class structure where the nobility and church owned the land which the peasants worked, and supported those above them while being kept down by those above, was very well conveyed in the film. Life was short and hard, health was poor and the plague could return at any time, carrying off those who had not been carried off by the incessant wars. Not a pleasant age to live. The period of the film is set just prior to the reformation. It is hardly surprising that the teachings of the various religious orders began to be questioned.

In medieval times William of Baskerville (Sean Connery) and his young helper Adso (Christian Slater) try to solve murders at a remote abbey. Most of the monks there think it's the Devil at work but William thinks it may be a human. What follows is a VERY complex and long but intriguing movie.

I read the book ages ago. It was an excellent book but I didn't see how it could ever be a movie. It was very long and had tons of theological discussions. The movie throws out most of the discussions, simplifies the story (but doesn't talk down to the viewer) and moves things along as quickly as possible. The mystery is deep and puzzling but I figured it out. During the last hour or so F. Murray Abraham shows up an Inquisitor and things really get out of hand. Still I was never lost.

The setting itself is bleak and remote perfectly fitting the tone of the movie. The acting is great. Connery just acts up a storm in a very pleasing, easy-going manner. Abraham takes his role and runs with it. You hate him every step of the way. Slater is given little to work with but he's still good. This is not for everybody. It portrays a somewhat realistic view of what an abbey would have looked like. It looks dirty and most of the monks look ugly and most have teeth missing! This is not a movie to watch if you want a pleasant feel-good movie. However it's great for people who don't mind the grimness and love a good mystery with theological digressions.. Recommended.

I've seen this movie several times. It's a great movie. My problem is that I watched it the other night on Prime Video and the sex scene had been edited out. For me, the sex scene is absolutely needed to understand how deep the young man's emotions run. At the end of the movie, the narrator goes on and on about the woman and he will never forget her face. She had such an impact on his life that he carried her face in his mind until his dying days. I believe the sex scene is absolutely necessary for the viewer to FULLY understand his reasoning. She caused him to leave the priesthood. Put the sex scene back in. I'm glad I own the full movie on blu ray.

A lot of our perception of the Middle Ages comes from previous Hollywood movies, such as Robin Hood and Excalibur. In reality, Europe of the Middle Ages was dark, damp, and dirty, there was no middle-class, and the clergy and the nobility ran society like dictators. Consideration of personal hygiene was almost non-existent, medical practices were atrocious, and the search for knowledge was discouraged by the church. Aside from the great Gothic cathedrals, much of the architecture was comprised of either large stone buildings or small shacks for the peasantry. And religious fanaticism raged all over Christendom. If you weren't fearing for your life in the hereafter because of sin, you might be worried that the church would haul you in on charges of heresy. But there was one small consolation: it was the period when some of the most beautiful books ever created first appeared by the artistic hands of monks in scriptoriums. This is the world of "The Name of the Rose", the film adaption of the novel by Umberto Eco.

The story concerns several murders that take place in a medieval monastery circa 1327. But this monastery is special (although essentially fictional): it contains one of the greatest and most extensive libraries in all of Medieval Europe. Not all aspects of the Middle Ages were gloom and doom. The age produced some of the most extravagantly beautiful hand-written books western society has ever seen. The large ornamented calligraphy was adorned by beautiful illuminations in the margins, artwork that surrounded the text. (The art of hand illumination has been subsequently lost to modern printing innovations.)

William of Baskerville (Sean Connery), a Franciscan monk, and his pupil Adso (Christian Slater) arrive at this Benedictine monastery hidden in the snow-clad mountains presumably near the border of Italy and modern-day Switzerland. At this time, the Franciscans were a relatively new monastic order, their order barely 100 years old, as compared to the Benedictines that by this time had boasted an 800-year history. William and Adso learn about the death of one of the monastery's best illuminators who worked in the monastery's scriptorium. The scriptorium was the area of a medieval monastery in which monks copied, illuminated and illustrated books. The story becomes a narrative about medieval books, classical writings, and the power of thought--medieval thought versus classical (aka Ancient Greek) sensibilities. As William of Baskerville (so-named referencing Sherlock Holmes) begins to piece together the puzzle, he realizes that the death has much to do with the library and its books, and possibly one book in particular.

Although this is a loose adaption of the book, the film "The Name of the Rose" is one of the best depictions of the Middle Ages. Unlike most Hollywood offerings concerning the same period, the actors in "The Name of the Rose" were probably similar to the strange-looking and care-worn monks that habituated 14th-century monastic life. Most of these people (save the two Hollywood actors Sean Connery and Christian Slater) are gaunt and less unattractive people occupying large drafty buildings full of stench and grime. Their lives amounted to sleeping, eating, working, and worship. Leisure was not just avoided, it was largely unknown. Their only solace is the beautiful Gregorian Chant that echos through the Church Sanctuary during morning and evening services.

No one in this movie is particularly attractive, and there are even a character or two who will make you cringe. The cast, mostly made up of French, Italian, and American actors, is outstanding with a few notable standouts. Ron Perlman as Salvatore, a dim-witted hunchback who doesn't know whether he's speaking Latin, Italian or French is the absolute tour-de-force performance of the film. His portrayal is worth the price of admission alone. I didn't realize the actor was actually American until much later! Feodor Chaliapin as the venerable Jorge, an aging blind monk that does not let his age nor his blindness interfere with his expressing opinion gives a stalwart performance. Volker Prechtel as the stoic librarian and supervisor of the scriptorium; his character could give any modern-day spinster a run for her money. William Hickey as Ubertino of Casale, an exiled Franciscan who is strangely lovable despite his age and his dying teeth! And F. Murray Abraham (of Salieri fame in Amadeus) is also memorable as the historical figure Bernardo Gui, a true-to-life 14th-century inquisitor. You really believe you are walking in the 14th century among these people. But would you want to invite them for coffee?

This is an outstanding film, granted not exactly escapist and definitely not for the feint of heart. Simultaneously, this movie provides a window into the world of Western Europe 700 years ago, when democracy did not exist, people were stratified, religious fanaticism the norm, and the world was lit only by fire. A compelling time and a compelling subject. Personally I love to study Middle Ages and its history and culture. Would I ever want to live back then? Not on your life. I'll use movies and books instead like the Name of the Rose.

Great shots of the abbey in the mountains and the film really captures the feel of the era. Stellar acting, especially by Mr. Connery and a strong cast makes this one of the better eighties flicks. A cerebral mystery, the different setting and time draws the watcher in a little deeper than your ordinary whodunit.

A young Christain Slater adds emotional content to the movie as his first sexual encounter with a village girl bonds him to her, despite their class. There are secret passages, the quest for the lost tome, cloak and dagger mystery and a wide array of characters to appeal to the imagination of fans of fantasy settings. The inquisition turns up to add a little flavor and intimidation factor to the movie as Sean Connery's character has been previously tangled up with them. Poison, murder, torture, lies all abound in this medieval setting thriller that should not be missed.

Umberto Eco, the author of the book of the same title obviously intended it to be a survey of medieval culture and an exegesis of the workings of the medieval mind. To do this, he used the well-worn genre of the cloak and dagger mystery through the character of a monk who is a combination of Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown.

Alas! The makers of the film obviously didn't understand the purpose of the book for it became a tawdry imitation of a Conan Doyle yarn. You would be better off watching a re-run of the classic series that starred Jeremy Brett, the best and most faithful Holmes ever. With this treatment, the plot - thin as it was - became obvious and humdrum; quite unlike in the book when you felt that the detective monk was truly up against an evil supernatural power.

In any case, the pleasure of the book was in satisfying one's intellectual curiosity especially in areas of medieval theology and history. Isn't it useful to understand the cause of the splintering of the Franciscans, one of the greatest religious orders of the Church, into factions led by the Spirituals versus the Conventuals? What was all the fuss about heresies in those days? What were the differences and similarities among the Waldensians, Bogomils, Albigensians and Cathars? How were they related to the early Christian Gnostics? How did they affect art? What's the difference between the art of Fra Filippo Lippi and Fra Angelico? Who was that Fra Dolcino who led a peasants' revolt a la Spartacus? How could the professors of the University of Paris censure a Pope (John XXII) and warn him that what he was teaching was heresy (and he retracted!)? He taught that the faithful do not gain the full beatific vision upon death and will have to wait until the Last Judgment before they could see God. He got this idea from a misreading of the Apocalypse.

The Benedictine monastery was presented as filthy and sloppy which was far from the way it was described in the book. After all, the monasteries were the repositories and transmitters of the civilized aspects of the ancient world which were lost to much of the known world during the Dark Ages. Even the illustrations in Eco's book show the monastery in the story as an oasis of order in a confused era.

Michael of Cesena, leader of the condemned Spirituals was portrayed badly as an ineffectual fanatic, almost senile, while in the book he had a magnetic personality that attracted Adso and impressed Fra William (Sean Connery).

The rollicking humor in the book was passed over too as missing was that scene in the treasury of religious relics where Fra William of Baskerville cracked a joke about the holy skull of St. John the Baptist when he was a boy.

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

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.

Annaud's adaptation of Eco's novel looks authentic on screen. The raw sets have an unpolished Gothic look, the location is quite 'dirty', the costumes look genuine...all of it adds to the realness. Speaking of sets, I loved how the labyrinth was created. It looks so dense, complex and claustrophobic. It was one of the most enjoyable sequences of the film. The camera-work, which is very good overall, is exceptional here. The empty Italian landscape contributes to the isolation of the little village. The lighting is used in such a way as to stress on the gloominess. Moreover, the viewer can sense a tense chilling atmosphere that hangs in the air as William and his student try to solve the mystery. Each of the characters have a distinct look which only adds to the mystery element.

Though the story does involve intricate historical details, it is basically a whodunnit. As the story proceeds, the mystery gets more complex and also proves to be more dangerous for our heroes, William and Adso. Yet, the details that are unraveled after each murder only draws the viewer further into the story.

Connery is in great form as William. He pulls it off with ease. A teenage Christian Slater correctly portrays the innocence and naivety of Adso. F. Murray Abraham is commendable in a small role. Of the supporting cast, Ron Perlman stands out as the insane Salvatore.

'Der Name Der Rose' is a suspenseful murder mystery and what makes this one different from others is its treatment, presentation and layers.

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.

I first saw this film 20 years ago. This was in the cinema when it first came out. I was too young at that time to fully comprehend some of the subtleties of the movie. Whilst I enjoyed the whodunit aspects, I was disturbed by some of the images that were presented. The self-flagellation by Savaltore is an image which stays in mind till today. Since then, I've watched it every 2 years or so, and the amazing thing is that each time I get more and more out of the film. Sometimes, it's the greater awareness of the religious issues of those times; sometimes it's because the actors have since become more recognised (eg Christian Slater, Ron Perlman (Hellboy!)). The cinematography is excellent, acting superb. An unforgettable film and highly recommended.

I saw this movie from an old well used VHS and so the quality was really bad and it was in 4:3. I would really like to watch this movie with good quality and in it's original aspect ratio as I can say this is a really good movie and I think maybe the bad circumstances clouded my impression a bit.

Broder William of Baskerwille and his novice Adso of Melk, two Franciscan monks, have come to a Benedictine Abbey to attend a meeting with a representative of the Pope. When they arrive they learn that an unexplained death has occurred and more are soon to follow. While the other monks believe it's the work of anti-Christ, Broder William is not so sure. He and his novice start to investigate and they soon discover that there are secrets within the walls of the abbey.

The story is set in 1327 and gives a pretty scary, yet true picture of life in those days. It's a well written film with a good puzzle. If you pay attention it's not hard to understand and it's not hard to keep track of the story. The characters are good. A little mysterious, but that only makes them more interesting. The voice-over are a nice touch that makes it all more personal and you get to know the character better.

Sean Connery is good as William of Baskerwille. His style of and his figure as a sophisticated and wise man fits this role very good. A young Christian Slater also does a rather good job and Ron Perlman's performance is very good. His character is very special, but Perlman handle this very well. The rest of the cast is over all good.

The cinematography is good. I watched it in 4:3 so the composition was not good, but if it had been 16:9 it would look good. There are some cool lightning and it's never hard to see what's going on.

The score is special. There are very little music. It's clearly not an American movie. There are some score here and there and then there are the classic Gothic music and songs that the monks sing that sets the mood very nicely.

This film is very realistic. The look and feel of it is very well captured and is expressed very well. It's cold and dark and the characters, story and everything else supports this very good. It's clearly not an American Hollywood-style of movie as there are no "action". It is also a relative slow pasted compared to Hollywood, but don't let that scare you. There are always something happening and it keeps you interested. You get caught up in the story and the characters and if you wan't to experience the dark ages this is the movie. Der Name Der Rose is a good and recommendable European move.

Only a limited number of films that I watched during my youth managed to leave an everlasting impression on me, but Jean-Jacques Annaud's adaptation of Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose" is one most definitely of them! I forgot for what purpose it was, but I actually watched "The Name of the Rose" in the fourth grade at school. I don't know what my teacher was thinking because this seriously isn't the type of film to show to a bunch of 9-year-olds, but on the other hand I'm strongly convinced the experience contributed a great deal to my current obsession for grim horror movies and convoluted murder mysteries. Even though we are 25 years later, and I've seen perhaps 15.000 films since then, I still remember practically every detail of that wondrously grim and mysterious film in which creepy monks were being killed off in a remote and petrifying old monastery. I found it even more impeccable & effectively disturbing now, especially since the recently released TV-series (produced by and starring John Turturro) was somewhat disappointing and tedious.

The charismatic Sean Connery puts down one of the most stellar performances of his rich career as William of Baskerville; - wise Franciscan friar and Sherlock Holmes ahead-of-time. He and his young novice Adso Von Melk (Christian Slater) travel to a remote monetary in the Italian alps, supposedly to participate in a grand Catholic debate, but the vicious murders quickly absorb all of Sir William's attention. Undoubtedly the #1 reason why "The Name of the Rose" forever kept stuck in my head is the extraordinary casting work. These monks are a dozen times scarier-looking and more menacing than immortal horror icons like Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger, and the image of several of them (like the hideous Malachia, the old & blind Jorge de Burgos, the disgusting Salvatore, ...) appeared in my nightmares for several years. The film also looks simply stunning! The 14th century set-pieces, and most notably the claustrophobic library-labyrinth are downright astounding. The costumes and photography are fantastic, and the script also contains a few fascinating history lessons that are far more educational than anything you'll ever learn in school, like for example the completely opposed interpretation of religion by the Franciscans and the Vatican.

Germany/Italy/France co-production with interesting and suspenseful screenplay by Andrew Birkin , Gérard Brach ,Howard Franklin and based on novel "Il Nome Della Rosa" by Umberto Eco . Set in 1327 , when after a strange death in a Medieval Abbey, the Benedictine monks are convinced that the four riders of apocalypse are coming ; many of the monks fear that there can be only an evil, supernatural explanation . The abbey is in fear over the recent death of one of their young monks, a brilliant illustrator who was found killed by an impact at the base of a cliff outside . With the Abbey to play host to a council on the Franciscan's Order's belief that the Church should rid itself of wealth, William of Baskerville(Director Jean-Jacques Annaud was not keen on casting Sean Connery in the role of William of Baskerville, and a large number of actors were considered prior to Connery being cast. Some of those actors include: Michael Caine, Albert Finney, Richard Harris, Ian McKellen) an intellectually nonconformist and respected Franciscan monk investigates a series of mysterious deaths in an isolated abbey. The Abbot (Michael Lonsdale) asks William to help solve the mystery as he is known to be a man of great intellect and a former investigator for the inquisition. As he is asked to assist in determining the cause of the untimely death, and is accompanied by a novice (Hundreds of teenage boys were scouted before the production settled on Christian Slater who was only 15 years old ). Meanwhile , there happens several murders and the young monk finds a mysterious girl (Valentina Vargas is the only female character in the film).

This is an acceptable screen rendition of Umberto Eco's bestseller and the movie took 5 years of preparation . The picture contains thrills , suspense , mystery , sexual scenes , intriguing issues and results to be quite entertaining . Very fine acting by Sean Connery as a monkish Sherlock Holmes trying to solve a series of murders , he is fun to watch . Good support cast plenty of uglies , such as Elya Baskin as Severinus ,Michael Lonsdale as The Abbot , Feodor Chaliapin Jr. as Jorge Burgos , William Hickey as Ubertino Casale , Michael Habeck as Berengar , Urs Althaus as Venantius , Ron Perlman as Salvatore , Leopoldo Trieste as Michele Cesena , Vernon Dobtcheff as Hugh of Newcastle , Donald O'Brien as Pietro d'Assisi and F. Murray Abraham as Inquisitor. Jean-Jacques Annaud admitted to casting the ugliest actors he could get because he wanted the characters to appear "real", based on the men in the village where he lived . Colorful and luxurious cinematography by Tonino Delli Colli , filmed on location in Bruzzo , Rome, Lazio, Italy and Taunus Mountains, Hessen, Germany . Impressive and spectacular production design by Dante Ferreti , as the monastery was constructed as a replica on a hilltop outside Rome, making it the biggest exterior set built in Europe since Cleopatra. Many of the inside shots were taken in the monastery Eberbach, which lies close to the Rhine. The catacombs that appear on the movie are private and belong to a small restaurant that the crew frequented on production. Evocative as well as thrilling musical score by James Horner .

The motion picture was well directed by Jean Jacques Annaud . He spent four years preparing the film, traveling throughout the United States and Europe, searching for the perfect multi-ethnic cast with interesting and distinctive faces. The magnificent filmmaker Annaud creates yet another picture excellently directed and stunningly produced . Annaud directed particular films with almost no human dialogue such as ¨Quest for fire¨ and was an expert on animal movies as proved in ¨The bear¨ , ¨Running Free¨ about horses and ¨Two brothers¨ dealing with tigers . His most successful pictures were ¨The lover¨ , ¨Enemy of the gates¨,¨Seven years in Tibet¨ and of course ¨The name of the rose¨. It was 4th highest grossing movie of its year in France , though failed at the US box office, grossing only $7.2 million. However, in Europe it did exceptionally well, contributing to its overall worldwide gross of over $77 million

In 1327, a Franciscan monk and his pupil (Connery and Christian Slater) arrive at a monastery in northern Italy to attend an important theological Roman Church conference. When monks are found dead in mysterious ways, William (Connery) winds up being the Medieval version of Sherlock Holmes. While he seems to figure the mystery out due to the evidence, a mirthless inquisitor is called in and sees things differently (F. Murray Abraham). Ron Perlman plays a hunchback and Michael Lonsdale the Abbot.

Based on Umberto Eco's 1980 book, "The Name of the Rose" (1986) is outstanding as far as locations, sets, costumes and make-up go. Anyone interested in a shadowy drama with the dreary Gothic ambiance of the Middle Ages, this is the film to see. It's helped by Connery's towering performance, marked by his nonchalant confidence. Slater is also excellent as the inquisitive novice. Meanwhile Valentina Vargas as the feral peasant girl is yet another highlight (there's some nudity, just a heads up).

The murder mystery is decent enough and there are interesting theological debates, but this is mostly a commentary on the good, the bad and the ugly of Medieval Catholicism. Remember, there was good reason for the Protestant Reformation that started less than 200 years later. I advise using the subtitles, as this is a dialogue-driven piece filled with mumbled Latin words and unusual names; it will help you understand the convoluted goings-on.

Speaking of which, the film seems weighed down and needed a rewrite to make the story more compelling. Yet it's still well worth checking out for those interested and it influenced many movies, like "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves" (1991). Fans of "Black Death" (2010) should appreciate it, although it's not on that level of greatness; the contemporaneous "Season of the Witch" too. Those films, however, are more conventionally entertaining. This one's more along the weighty lines of "The Bridge of San Luis Rey" (2004), which most people hated, but I appreciated.

The flick runs 2 hours, 11 minutes, and was shot at a replica of the monastery on a hilltop outside Rome (exteriors and some interiors) while most interiors were done at Eberbach Abbey, Germany, over 700 miles to the north; the mountain scenes were shot nearby in Taunus Mountains, Hessen, Germany.

GRADE: B-

In his 1983 "Postscript to The Name of the Rose," Umberto Eco alluded to the film-ability of his novel: "Marco Ferreri once told me my dialogs are cinematographic because they last just long enough. Deliberately, when two of my characters pass, conversing, from the refractory to the cloister, I write with an eye to the floor plan, and when they arrive they stop speaking" (my translation). Though it was a bestseller so full of intricate discussions, historical and ecclesiastical allusions, and, of course, names, that many more may have bought than read it, The Name of the Rose is intensely visual. It's both visual and claustrophobic. The overall "set," the monastery, is so small, and the possibilities within it so constrained and so few, yet so full as Eco has written them, that the right filmmaker had only to follow Eco's lead.

Peter Greenaway (Drowning by Numbers, A TV Dante, Belly of the Architect) comes immediately to mind, because of Eco's labyrinth and puzzles; but so does the still active ninety-six-year-old Manoel de Oliveira (The Covent, The Divine Comedy, The Cannibals), who like the late Bresson sees religious pathways where the rest of us might not. I think the Rohmer of L'Anglaise et le duc, but also of My Night at Maud's, might have been an ideal translator of Eco's discussions, while the bluntness of the story's deaths, dangerous Inquisitor Gui, and the all-consuming final conflagration might have helped answer some filmgoers' problem with Rohmer. I love against-type casting, and might surely have "cast" Rohmer as this violent film's director.

I vaguely recall liking the film, as just another movie, in 1986. The chilly mountain monastery on the big screen must have impressed. But Annaud and his four screenwriters diminish Eco's work to Sherlock Holmes in cassocks.

Early on they wrest the point of view from Adso, lazily, to show the Abbot and aides uttering expository lines. Adso, young and old all at once because he tells the story years later with the perspective of age, unreliable and maybe-reliable narrator all at once for the same reason, is as pervasive and as absent as Boswell. His experience with the peasant girl comes dead center in the novel. Everything builds to and falls from it. This is ironic, tragic, laughable or (to be gentler) comical, because it's not his story. He's telling it. He puts her there. But it's not his story. So many years later there's simply no one left to stop him putting her there. Annaud & Co. make her something other than what both Adso and William, with the cruelty of their avocation, term her, a prostitute. Adso's obsession, his repeated use of the word "love" based on a single wordlessly grappling experience, without so much an exchange of names, wreaks biting satire upon celibacy. The girl's repeated appearances in the film, and her beyond belief escape from Gui, destroy Eco's satire, replacing it with the worst sort of maudlin.

Gui, as Eco portrays him, isn't a villain. He's more like bad weather: an unstoppable, unavoidable force. F. Murray Abraham plays him as a smooth thug who in movie cliché terms must fall. Eco dispatches him for Rome, with the Adso's doomed girl and Salvatore irrevocably in tow, before the conflagration precisely because he cannot fall.

Eco's title for the book might have been "Adso of Melk," but Italian publishers, he says, dislike proper names. Annaud seems to have wanted Eco's rose to be a rosebud. It's Kane's sled! It's Adso's girl! But Adso's superbly contradictory final line (I don't know Latin) is something like "A rose gone has no name; we keep empty names."

A rose is a labyrinth. Or, the Rose here is the Labyrinth? Shadow between its petals leads to its center. Annaud & Co. diminish the labyrinthine library. The crisis it entails begins in Eco's first few pages when the Abbot, portrayed more sympathetically, and as a wiser man, than in the film, challenges that the ingenious William should be able to deduce all he needs know about the library without setting foot inside it. Even though William fails to the extent that he must eventually enter the library and even return there, how could filmmakers, movie-makers, have thrown out this wonderfully Holmesian challenge?! Peter Greenaway might have build all else upon it. The difficulty of entry and close terror of being lost inside the library barely surface in the film.

Other losses: the significance of Arabic texts; the full impact of the running argument around blind Borges' disdain of laughter; any real sense of the monastery buildings' and rooms' locations in relation to each other with respect to the solving of the murders.

Please don't chide me about the different demands of prose and film. I've written about them myself. When I closed "Il nome della rosa," I knew I'd just read a beautiful film.

I can't imagine that this will ever be remade, and maybe that's just as well. But it could and should have been more than this too-simple movie.