It doesn't get much better than this.

Author: metaphor-2 from United States
16 April 1999

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A murder mystery set in a medieval monastery, this film manages to be intriguing, amusing, thrilling and terrifying.

It was adapted from the first novel by the Italian semiotician Umberto Eco, a book concerned with the monopolization of knowledge. Eco approached this subject by concocting a series of mysterious deaths that occur in an isolated monastery, which eventually prove to revolve around a small coterie of disobedient monks who are partaking of a forbidden book. This leads to the discovery of the monastery's great secret, a vast hidden library where the knowledge of the ages is being allowed to rot away by authorities who hoard the books on the paternalistic justification that the knowledge they contain is too dangerous for ordinary people to possess.

The library is a vast maze, and being lost in it is one of the novel's central episodes. (The maze theme, and particularly the library-as-maze, is one Eco shares with Jorge Luis Borges, and it feels here almost like the baton passed from one marathon-runner to the next.) It is a novel filled with the love of books themselves, and dressed in a stunning evocation of one of the bleakest periods in the intellectual history of the last 2000 years.Jean Jacques Annaud's masterful adaptation of this book wisely retains some of the novel's elements, and transmutes others into terms far better suited to the medium of film.

Annaud creates the milieu of the monastery, bleak, dank, claustrophobic, almost drained of life, brilliantly. (This film is the only way I'd ever want to visit a 13th century monastery.) The suppression of individualism that is part and parcel of this monastic life is the obvious outward expression of the mindset that would suppress the product of centuries of human thought and writing. Into it he brings William of Baskerville, excellently cast and wonderfully played by Sean Connery... a man who appears to be a monk solely because it is the only occupation in which he had the opportunity to study and exercise his mind.

An obvious pre-cursor to Sherlock Holmes, William believes his eyes and ears, even when they contradict doctrine and the Official Line. He is brought in by the Abbott to explain deaths and quiet the rumors... before the impending visit of a notoriously ruthless official of the Inquisition. To the Abbott's great dismay, William dismisses an easy explanation and instead seeks to unravel the mystery. And coming ever closer is hovering threat of The Inquisition, which is eventually embodied on screen by the sinister F. Murray Abraham.

Where Annaud's film departs from the novel is in shifting the emphasis away from "the suppression of books" as the central theme. It remains a powerful symbol, but it is not required to stand on its own for the idea behind it. It is touched on in a wonderful scene where William first enters the library/maze and realizes what's hidden there, books he's heard legends of and longed to read his whole life, and he becomes totally giddy with the joy of this discovery. But the seduction of the maze, the high-point of the novel, is a distinctly literary effect, and Annaud and his writers shrewdly perceived that it would be rather flat on screen.

Instead, they center on the suppression of Free Thinking by the Inquisition, and the ruthless forms of terrorism employed to intimidate the "useful" minds into staying in their place, and thinking only what they are told. The human drama of the flames of the Inquisition "read" far more effectively on film than the intellectual drama of the imprisoned books, and that is driving force that makes the film, in its own medium, every bit as effective as the book.In all, this film is an entertainment for the mind as well as the senses, filled with remarkable performances an indelible visions.

 The Name of The Rose is a superb film but requires thinking.

Author: ozthegreatat42330 from Central City, Kentucky
10 April 2007

A murder mystery set in a monastery in the late middle ages, at a time when the Franciscan order and the Holy Inquisition were at odds, mostly over  the extravagances of the Papacy, is a dark and moody film, which matches the period of the story well. Once again Sean Connery takes a difficult role  and makes it uniquely his. Fifteen year old Christian Slater is seen in his breakout role. But the real star of the film is the library of the monastery, a  labyrinthine building that is many floors high and created with stairways that seem to always lead away from where you want to go. I found the book,  frankly tedious. Umberto Eco writes in a style that is very pedantic at times, and just plain confusing at others. But the story translated well to the  screen, but you must be willing to exhaust a little brain sweat to get anything out of the story. Be well rested before you watch this one.

Scarey Days...

Author: Noir-5 from London
12 February 1999

If you like movies to send you back to another historical period, there are few which can do it more effectively than this one. The period is  pre-enlightenment when the only books in the land (Italy) are owned by the different denominations of the Catholic faith. Inquisitions are the order of the day and the atmosphere of mistrust and misrepresentation which accompany such a fragile state, is expertly realised.

Enter Sean Connery playing a Sherlock Holmes (`…Elementary my dear Wat-shun…') from the dark/middle ages, replete with a magnifying glass of  sorts and a recognisable system of logical deduction. The story is a fine balance of complexity (easy enough to follow, but not too simplistic) with the  inclusion of a number of sub-plots to keep it all ticking along nicely. The acting is very good but what makes it stand out is its evocation of another era, which is reproduced with authority. Highly enjoyable.

The Novel Predates the Davinci Code by 20 years

Author: emuir-1 from United States
13 March 2005

A number of people have commented on the similarity of this film, and the Novel by Umberto Eco, to the DaVinci Code. For those who were not born  then, The Name of the Rose was published in 1980, thus predating DaVinci by about 20 or more years. I must admit that I found DaVinci to be a mass  market popularization of Eco's theme, in short a "rip off". Still, it may be the popularity of Brown's novel which has resulted in Name of the Rose being brought back in a DVD version, and for that I am truly thankful.

For a film which was not favorably reviewed by the critics, it is surprising how many reviewers 20 years later are giving it a 10. Either the film wore well or  tastes have changed. I loved the film first time around and was delighted to find it on DVD. Certainly the screenplay had to deviate from the  philosophizing of the book. It would have been almost unwatchably "talkie" had it not, and those of us who want to read the sermons  / discussions can  read the book. The film stands on it's own.

The most ominous feeling for me, living in the religious and politically free thinking 21st century, was the realization that the church had such a grip on  every aspect of life and thinking in the middle ages, and that any perceived repudiation of accepted Church dogma was deemed heresy and punishable  by torture and a horrible death. That one group of people should wield such power, and the length they would go to to hold on to that power is truly frightening.

The rigid class structure where the nobility and church owned the land which the peasants worked, and supported those above them while  being kept down by those above, was very well conveyed in the film. Life was short and hard, health was poor and the plague could return at any time, carrying off those who had not been carried off by the incessant wars. Not a pleasant age to live. The period of the film is set just prior to the reformation.  It is hardly surprising that the teachings of the various religious orders began to be questioned. Excellent - despite the film medium's short comings!

"The step between ecstatic vision and sinful frenzy is all too brief."

Author: Righty-Sock (robertfrangie@hotmail.com) from Mexico
24 June 2007

The film opens in 1327, with a Franciscan monk and his young novice arriving to a remote abbey in the dark north of Italy to participate in a crucial  debate between the emissaries of Pope John XXII and leaders of the Franciscan order, to decide whether the church should take vows of poverty or wealth...

After a series of murders—attributed to the presence of a supernatural force— that are taking place within the cold walls of the godforsaken battlement,  Brother William of Baskerville (Connery) ends up undertaking an investigation to solve the secrets surrounding these unexplainable crimes… All of them bearing blackened fingers and blackened tongues…

What follows, brings William face to face with Bernardo Gui (F. Murray Abraham), the sadistic Grand inquisitor—appointed by the Pope to hunt down  and free the Church of heretics—who sees the abbey enshrouded in a terrifying mystery and the devil roaming behind every foul deed… Gui burns every last suspected devil-worshipper in the village, forcing Baskerville to uncover the truth before innocent blood is shed…

As always, Connery lends dignity, intelligence as the acute and prudent monk who has knowledge, both of the human spirit and the wiles of the evil  one… Connery plays his role with gusto…  Newcomer Christian Slater plays Connery's faithful sidekick, Adso, the youngest son of the Baron of Melk who sure does like to watch his master at  work… One night—expressing fear and confusion— he gets feminine carnal delights from a peasant girl, 'a creature that rose like the dawn, was  bewitching as the moon, radiant as the sun, terrible as an army poised for battle…'

For a moment, Ron Perlman steals the show as the heretical hunchbacked monk named Salvatore who is ugly yet phenomenal… His scenes with  Abraham are stirring…  "The Name of the Rose" is atmospheric, but disturbing at many levels…Some might say, contradictory,leaving plenty of twists and turns unresolved and unexplained, but the film was a smash hit in Europe… Annaud succeeds in capturing the claustrophobia and panic of being truly lost in the  menacing, creepy Dark Ages…