Criminally underrated by some, hailed as a masterwork by others.
Who's right? The "masterwork" campaigners, of course!

Author: Jonathon Dabell (barnaby.rudge@hotmail.co.uk) from Todmorden, England
16 December 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

'Variety' got it completely wrong when they called this film "sorrowfully mediocre" and "sluggishly staged". For in all honesty The Name of the Rose is one of the greatest films of the '80s, and a film that grows in greatness every time you revisit it. Based on a major bestselling novel by Umberto Eco, the film is an excellent murder mystery further heightened by its authentic period trappings and a clutch of tremendous performances.

Brother William of Baskerville (Sean Connery) and his young apprentice Adso (Christian Slater) are monks who arrive in a 14th Century monastery having been summoned for a religious conference. Soon after their arrival, a series of bloodthirsty murders take place and the friars still alive begin to fear that either the Apocalypse is upon them, or a highly disturbed individual is out to bump them off. Brother William has a penchant for sleuthing, so he probes into the mysterious deaths and discovers that each victim had laid his eyes upon a Greek manuscript hidden deep within the interior of the monastery. He gradually realises that the killer must be targeting those who know of the book's existence, but just as he is about to solve the killings an inquisitor (F. Murray Abraham) arrives and tries to discredit Brother William's theories, preferring to blame the crimes on non-existent heretics and satanists.

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, never in too great a hurry to unravel but never so slow that it becomes a plod. Connery is great as the hero, surpassed only by Abraham in a breathtaking role as Bernardo Gui the inquisitor, and Slater does well considering his tender age as the loyal apprentice. Both Roy Scheider and Michael Caine were short-listed for the Connery role, but I don't see how either actor could've done better with the character. Jean Jacques Annaud directs outstandingly, capturing every shadow, every expression and every plot piece with the eye that only a director obsessed with his material possibly can. The Name of the Rose makes the top #50 of the 1980s without question.

Author: MinorityReporter from Denmark
6 October 2005

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. 

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@?#§~&@

 Flawless book, almost flawless film

Author: mightymariner from Manchester
18 August 2003

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 f 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.'