SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Helloturia I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

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

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

slightlymad22 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.

SnoopyStyle Adso of Melk is an old man recalling a pivotal time during his youth. It's late 1327 in the dark north of Italy. Adso (Christian Slater) arrives at a Benedictine abbey with his mentor Franciscan friar William of Baskerville (Sean Connery) to argue the issue of the church's wealth. William is a Sherlock Holmes character with exceptional perception and deduction. The Abbot is trying to keep a recent death from William and wait for Inquisitor Bernardo Gui (F. Murray Abraham). William notices the fresh grave. It's a young manuscript illuminator whose work he admires. He and his young novice investigate the death but then others die. Adso has sex with a local girl. William befriends hunchback Salvatore (Ron Perlman) from a heretical sect. They discover a labyrinthine secret library as William's nemesis Gui arrives.The first time I watched this, it was a mess of confusing characters and ideas about the medieval world. The resolution is understandable. Solving the murder became secondary to trying to immerse in this world. It gets better the second time around. I'm sure the book is more in depth. The red herring needs more exposition time. Novel adaptation often has this problem. The setting has the foggy muddy part down. The secret library has plenty of stairways. The acting is solid. It takes a couple of times to ingest everything from the movie.

Predrag Excellent performance from Sean Connery as the highly intelligent detective Monk and an equally good early performance from a young Christian Slater as the eager, willing and humanly flawed pupil to Sean Connery's wise teacher. Slater is also confused about his calling and his feelings towards a local peasant girl, also look out for Ron Pearlman of Hellboy fame in a role as a heretic hunchback. The plot and story line is gripping. It had me guessing until the very end. What makes this a great film is the cinematography, locations and acting. Connery is superb as the sometimes child like detective Monk. Slater is fantastic as Connery's novice. The directing of the film, the sets and of course the scripts all perfectly intermingle to make you feel a part of a 14th century Italian monastery.The film is beautifully set in an Italian monastery that looks like it is straight out of the 14th century, the film is an excellent twist on a murder mystery It's the work of the Devil. That's what some say when a bizarre series of deaths strikes a 14th-century monastery. Others find links between the deaths and the book of Revelation. But Brother William of Baskerville thinks otherwise. He intends to find a murderer by using fact and reason, the tools of heresy. 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.Overall rating: 9 out of 10.

berberian00-276-69085 Umberto Eco (1932 – 2016) has been always difficult to handle. More so after he is already dead and have left a solid legacy. "Name of the Rose" (1986), both the novel and the film, have inspired considerable acclaim now in its 30th anniversary. Perhaps the movie guild should make an effort to prepare a new critical edition since the last release from 2004 on DVD and Blu-ray, which is good but outdated.I thought some time before writing these lines. It says in the introductory cadres of the film - a Palimpsest on Umberto Eco's Novel! Definition from Gerard Genette (1982) - "Palimpsest examines the manifold relationships a text may have with prior texts ... In this regard it treats the history and nature of parody, anti-novels, pastiches, caricatures, commentary, allusions, imitations and other textual relations". Wikipedia can provide further extension on this definition. This is in essence literature in the second degree!Then came the pressure of semiotics - What is it all about? I have a huge library, some 10 000 volumes that I have purchased with my pocket money for many years on a row. My selection here is with David Crystal (editor) "Encyclopedia of Language", where unfortunately Umberto Eco is not included as semiotician. By-and-large starting with Charles Peirce and Ferdinand de Saussure, we get here an updated scheme on Semiotics where subject matter is three-some or five-some:1. Auditory or vocal language with speech, musical effects, vocal cord physiology, etc;2. Body language or non-verbal communication with A/ Visual mode with signs and symbols, writing, kinesics; B/ Tactile mode for deaf and blind with codes, proxemics, etc;3. Olfactory and gustatory signals which is bio-semiotics and predominantly models communication in the animal kingdom.I hope that my reflections haven't hurt anyone, not least the estate of the author himself. My humble origins doesn't give me a single chance to become celebrity like Umberto Eco. I live in the fringes of Europe and my home town Sofia - although having perfect record of European residence - have been overshadowed by Turkish and Soviet populace. I don't see much future in those places and much less opportunities for science and film industry. However, future is with the young generation and people like me live on minimal retirement pension, with reflections on the past. Thank you!