The Name of the Rose (1986)

Please don't spend money on this.

Masterful Cinema

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Adapting a book of more than 600 pages to the big screen wasn't a easy job, even with the collaboration of 4 screenwriters under the supervision of the 'artsy' french director, Jean-Jacques Annaud, fresh from the critical success of his previous work, "Quest for Fire" ('81) and even the author, the Italian novelist Umberto Eco, knew that, but he gave the approval and after 4 years of preparations, the production starts filming a palimpsest of his 1980 historical murder mystery debut novel. "The Name of the Rose" is a well-crafted drama / mystery / 'whodunit' film, set in the Medieval Era and telling the story of a Franciscan Friar, William of Baskerville (Sean Connery), a wise middle-age man with great power of deduction and his young novice, Adso of Melk (Christian Slater) which arrive to a somber Benedictine Abbey in northern Italy, during the wintertime, to participate in a debate with Papal emissaries about the excess of wealth in the Church. The Abbey is covered in sorrow and fear because of the recent demise of a young attractive manuscript illuminator, in a deemed unnatural way, which prompted the Brothers to suspect that was the work of the Devil. The Abbot (Michael Lonsdale) asks William for help to solve the mystery and to calm the Abbey's population before his last resort of demanding the Holy Inquisition, led by the ruthless Bernardo Gui (F. Murray Abraham), to find the guilty using their own sadistic methods...Eco's choice of naming his protagonist William of Baskerville was a clearly homage to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's mystery novel, "The Hound of Baskervilles" featuring his most famous creation, Sherlock Holmes and his inseparable & dearest partner and future chronicler, Doctor John Watson, here personified by the young Adso which also serves as the narrator, telling us the terrifying events which occurred in the ancient Abbey, many years later. The name William is also believed to be based on the English Franciscan Friar, William of Ockham, a Scholastic Philosopher, well known for his significant works on logic, physics and theology. He even created a methodological principle called "Occam's razor".Now, what more can be said about this sterling piece of art ? The direction is top notch as so are the high production values involved: the locations; the Art Direction, Set Decoration and Costume Design; the Makeup Department (where were the Oscar nominations ?), all together makes this movie experience looks and feels like we're in the Middle Age, it's probably one of the best films ever made depicting the life in the Dark Ages, the authenticity is astonishing !! The cinematography by Tonino Delli Colli is splendid, giving a visually eerie feeling and a realistic gloomy look at the secular Abbey, especially the sequences inside the labyrinthic library (amazingly designed in the Gothic architectural style by the Production Designer Dante Ferretti) that were masterfully shot. Last, but not the least, James Horner's haunting compositions embraces the viewer into the intricate mystery helping to establish the moody tone of the movie.The cast is superb, kudos to the casting director and Annaud himself for selecting some of the most unforgettable and distinctive faces ever put on-screen. Sean Connery was tailor made for this kind of role, playing the open-minded William of Baskerville who can see the light of reason in a time of blind faith. After almost a decade into oblivion appearing in lesser known films as the romantic lead, the then 55 years old (but looked a bit older) ex-James Bond, convinced Annaud that he can do justice to William of Baskerville and he did and with that career decision, Connery re-invented his screen persona in the mid to late 80's, becoming, with major success, the Mentor of the protagonist for the rest of his career ("Highlander", "The Presidio", "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade", "Family Business" and so on...). Christian Slater at 16 years old, have here is breakthrough role as Adso of Melk, participating in a way graphic sex scene with the 22 years old actress Valentina Vargas, who shocked the censors in America and UK, but as a French / Italian / German co-production, this seemed more common, natural and harmless there. F. Murray Abraham, in his first film after he won the Academy Award for performing Salieri in "Amadeus" ('84), is always 'machiavellian' and 'over-the-top' playing the antagonist, and Bernardo Gui, the head of the Holy Inquisition, fits him like a glove. Michael Lonsdale, Volker Prechtel, William Hickey, Elya Baskin and Helmut Qualtinger are all outstanding in their supporting roles, but the then 81 years old Feodor Chaliapin, Jr. as the blind Venerable Jorge de Burgos and the great character actor and forever typecast in this kind of monstrous roles, Ron Perlman as the hunchback Salvatore, both stole the movie every time they're on-screen. Perlman was, criminally, snubbed from an Academy Award nomination, probably he gave the best supporting performance of 1986.The only complaint about this production is that the third act feels rushed to finish the movie and was edited in a way that breaks the unsettling pace established earlier, maybe with more half a hour the movie could have been even better and escalate to the top of the best 'whodunit' ever made.In short, what Ron Howard did, exactly 20 years later, adapting the similar themed puzzling mystery, "The Da Vinci Code" with a routine & by-the-numbers direction and collecting all the accolades, Annaud did it first and better, giving us a truly memorable film, a triumph in craftsmanship, misunderstood when it was released (Roger Ebert gave it a lacklustre review), but re-appreciated and re-evaluated in more recent times and occupying nowadays the podium of one of the best films that came out of the 80's decade. For fans of a great & thrilling detective story, out of the Hollywood's standards, who also makes the viewer think, this is a must-see film.Highly recommended !!

Continuing my plan to watch every Sean Connery movie in order, I come to Name Of The Rose (1986)Plot In A Paragraph: William of Baskerville (Connery) an intellectually nonconformist friar investigates a series of mysterious deaths in an isolated abbey.After a three year break, this was a much different Sean Connery who returned to cinema's. Reinventing himself as the older, wiser mentor. In the first of 3 great performances in a row, Connery delivers an absolutely wonderful performance. Imagine if Sherlock Holmes was an old monk, and you get William of Baskerville.Sean Connery's career was at such a low point away from Bond, then he was asked to read for the role, which he did, and then Columbia Pictures refused to finance the movie when director Jean-Jacques Annaud cast him as the deemed him box office poison.What we have here is the premise of a great movie. Sadly it's filmed in such a way, that at times it's so dark, it's hard to see what is actually going on. The screenplay is lacking at times too. There are so many good things in this movie, most of the performances, the reconstruction of the period, the over-all feeling of medieval times, that if the story had been able to really involve us, this would have been a brilliant movie. As it is, it falls short, but is still a really good movie. Ron Pearlman is heartbreakingly good in his supporting role, as is F Murray Abraham and Bond Villain Michael Lonsdale. However based on this performance, I would never have guessed that Christian Slater would still have an acting career 32 years later. Columbia Pictures fears proved to be founded as Name Of The Rose only grossed $7 million at the domestic box office. However it was a decent sized hit internationally adding $70 million to its total.

(58%) A strong, quality entry into the medieval period set movies, with more than a touch of exploitation fun added into the mix to spice things up a little. Sean Connery is on decent form as one of the very few likable characters (look out for the guy who looks a lot like uncle Fester), while a very young looking Christian Slater is fine as the apprentice monk. The best aspect by far though is the bleak, cold, and impressive looking setting which incorporates an actual Italian fortress, and some of the location work and cinematography is very good. Above all else this is a murder mystery, and because of the setting it makes for a quite unique and interesting watch. And despite the pace overall being a touch too slack, this is still a fine, slightly obscure watch.

A detective story set at an Abbey in the Middle Ages. Any story based on that premise should normally have a contrived feel to it, but this movie manages to pull it off quite well. William of Baskerville (Sean Connery) and his apprentice, Adso of Melk (Christian Slater), two Franciscan monks go to an isolated Benedictine Abbey to attend some sort of a Medieval theological conference. At the same time the Abbey is plagued by a series of unnatural deaths which most of the monks are willing to pin unto the devil and a prophecy. William is unwilling to accept this explanation, and with the help of Adso, looks for a logical solution. The cinematography, production design and costumes are brilliant and help us, the viewers, see why the period was called the Dark Ages. The social ills of the time - exploitation of the poor, suppression of free thinking or any kind of descent, Kangaroo courts, harsh punishments, misogyny, etc. - are all vividly brought to life. The movie does not have a single unimportant scene and yet its length also conveys the monotony of the monastery life.Connery does justice to the role of a well-studied, devout yet reasoning monk who commands the respect of even those who are against his way of thinking. F. Murray Abraham as Berdardo Gui, the Inquisitor properly inspires hatred in us and we also see why he inspires such fear in the monks. Slater portrays the learning curve of his character pretty well. The supporting cast of monks have been chosen as much for their ugliness as their acting ability. Collectively they give a creepy and repulsive feel to the Abbey and make us pity any young/handsome monk who may have the misfortune of landing there. There are only a couple of points to nitpick on. The peasant girl who portrayed Slater's love interest should have had a few speaking lines; there was no reason why she should appear to be mute. And, the set design of the library is obviously inconsistent; there is no way the sets we see as its interior would fit into a building the size of the set we are shown as its exterior.Its is a must watch for all period movie lovers and Connery fans.