Lovesusti
The Worst Film Ever
Huievest
Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.
Derrick Gibbons
An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.
educallejero
Excellent. The story, plot, and (in my opinion) production is awesome. The direction great. I always felt I was watching people from those times, more or less... The less is because of Connery and Slater, which I think they both sucked not at acting, but talking. They just didn't nail the tones and ways of speaking. The clear Sherlock Holmes tones and references weren't good.
room102
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.
martynsommer
I recently went back in time 30 years. First, I decided to complete Umberto Eco's first novel, The Name of the Rose, after having tried many times without success. Then, upon eventual completion (it took around two months),I re-watched the movie, which I had initially seen about 27 years ago.My general impression of the movie was that the writers hadn't understood the novel at all. The arbitrary narrative that they chose to select from the 600 plus pages had very little to do with the point Eco was trying to make (which seems to have been lost on Jean-Jacques Annaud and crew). However, considering that most people who watch this movie won't have read the book (and I was guilty of this on my original viewing), this film still works as the forerunner of medieval murder mystery movies.Both Sean Connery and an adolescent Christian Slater are great in their roles as Franciscan monk and novice apprentice, respectively. Connery as the Sherlock Holmes-like Brother William is especially ideal for the part. His penetrating one liners are delivered with classic virtuoso. Another positive point is that this movie doesn't feel dated, mainly due to the competent cinematography and colorful cast of assorted freaks.For those who have read the book and hold it in high esteem, this film will not hold much stead and will ultimately disappoint. The characters are all one dimensional, as opposed to the complex figures of the novel. Furthermore, the focus on the love interest for Adso is quite lame and the choice between the girl and the church that he makes at the end borders on cliché. There are a lot of minor characters who make a brief appearance for no particular reason, leaving the viewer perplexed.This is by no means a bad film. It's just not The Name of the Rose that Umberto Eco brilliantly and painstakingly created. The book has the potential to change our fundamental processes of thinking. The movie is just an interesting historical drama.
Armand
an inspired adaptation for Umberto Eco novel. good performance. realistic atmosphere. impressive manner to use each nuance of text. but, more important, a remarkable show. for the definition of essence of a period, for the remember of spirit of a closed community, for the measure who can be, in this case, easy to be ignored. and, sure, for the mark of a great director. it can be a thriller or a historical movie. each definition has its advantages but , in fact, it is a film about knowledge. not only as gesture to have a large personal culture, not as seed of power but as basic way to be free. so, the lead character in this case is a book. and its shadow. the precise science of Sean Connery to use each possibility opened by his role remains remarkable. and seductive in measure in which the performance of Christian Slater is not less.
