Very well executed

Just what I expected

An unexpected masterpiece

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

I am going to check this movie as a movie. The book doesn't count. yeah, it is based on a big novel, but a movie most stand by itself.What do you get from an ambitious director, ambitious screenwriters and a really giant project? You either get a really great movie or whatever the hell the last airbender is.Everything in this movie is great: From the medieval era locations to the photography, to the casting, to the dialog, to the scenography, to the acting. The ending feels rushed: you've been building this movie into a climax that just shine for a second and then dies. Then the ending comes promptly. Sure, everything in the end is solved, but it leaves you unsatisfied none the less.Great movie from a really hard to read novel. Watch it and bring the popcorn.

I read the book written by Umberto Eco three or four times over the years and it is still an outstanding masterpiece - an exquisite thinker, a sharp and witty writer and someone with a great expertise in history, philosophy, and theology - not many writers have such an immense background they can use to make such a fine piece of literature. Like the book the movie directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud gives us a little glimpse into the life of people living in the Middle Ages. Sean Connery as William of Baskerville plays superb, Christian Slater as Adson of Melk is a rising star, and all the other actors play good to very good- a well-composed cast (not to mention Ron Perlman as a hunchbacked monk). The movie really got a feel of authenticity. The only aspect I have to complain about are some of the changes done regarding the book - well, imo they are no improvement - especially the almost happy-ending regarding the rose named girl (in the book it is indicated that she would burn with the two monks in Avignon after trial) and as Bernardo Gui (the inquisitor) is a historical person - he did not die in real life (and in the book) like in the movie depicted. Eichinger (the producer or whoever is responsible for those changes) did imo regarding the ending of the movie too much sugar-coating for the audience. For those unnecessary but important changes, I got at least to distract one or two points. Anyway - still a magnificent movie.

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.

This film's hard to describe: one part murder mystery, one part social commentary / historical context. The movie's built around the ideas of theology, study, and knowledge, so the murder mystery plays second fiddle to these heady concepts. It's an obvious and easy thing to say, but Sean Connery is a treasure, celebrated for good reason. He is no less charming as a Franciscan monk than his portrayal of James Bond, which is weird, because monks are usually celibate (apparently.)Ron Perlman is also in this, playing a ghoulish hunchback. He's a class A ham who's made a career out of playing malformed brutes with beautiful hearts, and it was a delight seeing him pop up during this film. There are other iconic actors throughout, but really this film is about its direction and atmosphere. Tweaking an element or two could easily convert this film into a fantastic horror show. Anyway, recommended.