Good start, but then it gets ruined

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

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!

This film is the cinematographic adaptation of Umberto Eco's homonymous novel, telling the story of a series of mysterious murders inside an isolated Benedictine abbey, in the middle of the Italian Alps during the Middle Ages. Its an excellent adaptation, as the most relevant content of the novel is passed on to the screen pleasantly and rigorously. As its a period film, its not uncommon to see some historically dubious details but, since the more obvious ones come from the original book, we cannot blame the film crew. Moreover, I didn't see any situation so obvious that it took value to the film, directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud. Sean Connery and Christian Slater are the central actors in the plot, in the role of two Franciscan friars sent to the abbey for a meeting with a papal delegation. They will try to solve the deaths of the monks, their hosts, before the arrival of the delegates. The two actors were at their best and the same can be said of Michael Lonsdale (the abbot), Feodor Chaliapin Jr. (the blind Brother Jorge) and F. Murray Abraham (the inquisitor Bernardo Gui), who shone in the secondary roles. The film makes a real effort of realism: the locations were handpicked, the scenarios faithfully reconstruct the abbey described by Eco, the costumes, the choice of the ugliest extras, even the black ink bath given to the pigs, everything was thought to recreate the medieval environment, which is truly one of the great advantages of the film. Some of the scenes are worthy of anthology, such as the scenes in the labyrinth or the scene in which Slater is seduced by a young peasant (Chilean actress Valentina Vargas). This film is, definitely, a good example of what must be a period film.

Excellent performance from Sean Connery as the highly intelligent detective Monk and an equally good early performance from a young Christian Slater as the eager, willing and humanly flawed pupil to Sean Connery's wise teacher. Slater is also confused about his calling and his feelings towards a local peasant girl, also look out for Ron Pearlman of Hellboy fame in a role as a heretic hunchback. The plot and story line is gripping. It had me guessing until the very end. What makes this a great film is the cinematography, locations and acting. Connery is superb as the sometimes child like detective Monk. Slater is fantastic as Connery's novice. The directing of the film, the sets and of course the scripts all perfectly intermingle to make you feel a part of a 14th century Italian monastery.The film is beautifully set in an Italian monastery that looks like it is straight out of the 14th century, the film is an excellent twist on a murder mystery It's the work of the Devil. That's what some say when a bizarre series of deaths strikes a 14th-century monastery. Others find links between the deaths and the book of Revelation. But Brother William of Baskerville thinks otherwise. He intends to find a murderer by using fact and reason, the tools of heresy. The film is very realistic in every way the cold,uncomfortable monastery; the graphic murders; grotesque and disfigured characters; a startlingly explicit sex scene; authentic-sounding dialogue; excellent indoor and outdoor locations; and well-researched costume designs. Furthermore, it is a superbly paced film.Overall rating: 9 out of 10.

Basically, it's a mix of Sherlock Holmes in a 14th century monastery and science vs. religion.Fantastic film, everything about it is excellent: Production, acting, writing, cinematography, score, makeup. Great directing with excellent atmosphere, but realistic and surreal. Each and everyone in the cast is great, with an honorary mention to Ron Perlman and F. Murray Abraham.A great bunch of weird people in the cast (I recall watching the "behind the scenes" and the director(?) said that he wanted unusual-looking people).It's hard to believe that this movie wasn't nominated even for one academy award.