I remember first seeing this movie when I was about 13 or 14 sometime in the early 9-ties. I then was somehow weirdly attracted by the grim, mystic medieval atmosphere, the setting and the characters, without properly understanding what it all was about. And one scene cut deeply into my memory then ;). You know, the one with the girl...
Since then, every time I thought about "The name of the rose" (the movie) I felt a strange attraction to it, thinking about how I should re-watch it or, probably even better, read the book. It's almost a mystery to me that it took me over 15 years to do that, until a few days ago. I bought the book and read it. I was so hooked by it, I still think about it a lot. It's a masterpiece. With the book still in fresh memory, the movie had some pretty large shoes to fill.
The scenery is chosen extremely well, I actually can't imagine a better one. The monastery feels very authentic, the Aedificium in particular. It's inner labyrinth, the library, is also presented nice, different from the book but it works well on screen.
The casting is excellent for most of the characters, though some, in my opinion, like Malachias and Bernard Gui don't seem to completely fit. The former is visually portrayed too cartoonish for my taste while the latter's accent doesn't fit in (Gui was French, not British). The issue with the accent only sticks out because the rest of the voice work is done so well. The different accents in combination with the many obscure and memorable characters (Berengar, Salvatore, etc.) capture the social complexity in the monastery well.
The best of the cast, is (ofcourse) Sean Connery. This role seems to have been written specially for him, he IS William from the book. The young Christian Slater fits the role of his young apprentice also great. The already mentioned scene with Slater and the girl is one of the most erotic I ever saw on screen.
What falls flat in the movie is the feeling of the political/theological complexity and tension described in the book. At times it feels like the cast simply is too small, most obvious in the conference between the papists and the Franciscans. The metaphysical dimension described in the book, the human indistinguishability between good and evil, between right and wrong doesn't even try to rise in the movie. Consequently, the movie lacks depth. The script further feels stitched together most of the time and it doesn't always seem logical (this doesn't really matter if you read the book, though). The acting, while good most of the time, isn't consistent throughout the movie. Some scenes should have been given a second or third take.
The story (novel), the characters and the setup of "The Name of the Rose" build the fundament for an intelligent, intriguing and memorable thriller. The experience is diminished by a (at times) sloppy screenplay, that introduces a few conveniences too much. Depth is traded off for something that almost feels like a happy ending. None the less, it will stick with you, if you liked it or not. There just aren't (m)any movies comparable to it even 25 years later...
Since then, every time I thought about "The name of the rose" (the movie) I felt a strange attraction to it, thinking about how I should re-watch it or, probably even better, read the book. It's almost a mystery to me that it took me over 15 years to do that, until a few days ago. I bought the book and read it. I was so hooked by it, I still think about it a lot. It's a masterpiece. With the book still in fresh memory, the movie had some pretty large shoes to fill.
The scenery is chosen extremely well, I actually can't imagine a better one. The monastery feels very authentic, the Aedificium in particular. It's inner labyrinth, the library, is also presented nice, different from the book but it works well on screen.
The casting is excellent for most of the characters, though some, in my opinion, like Malachias and Bernard Gui don't seem to completely fit. The former is visually portrayed too cartoonish for my taste while the latter's accent doesn't fit in (Gui was French, not British). The issue with the accent only sticks out because the rest of the voice work is done so well. The different accents in combination with the many obscure and memorable characters (Berengar, Salvatore, etc.) capture the social complexity in the monastery well.
The best of the cast, is (ofcourse) Sean Connery. This role seems to have been written specially for him, he IS William from the book. The young Christian Slater fits the role of his young apprentice also great. The already mentioned scene with Slater and the girl is one of the most erotic I ever saw on screen.
What falls flat in the movie is the feeling of the political/theological complexity and tension described in the book. At times it feels like the cast simply is too small, most obvious in the conference between the papists and the Franciscans. The metaphysical dimension described in the book, the human indistinguishability between good and evil, between right and wrong doesn't even try to rise in the movie. Consequently, the movie lacks depth. The script further feels stitched together most of the time and it doesn't always seem logical (this doesn't really matter if you read the book, though). The acting, while good most of the time, isn't consistent throughout the movie. Some scenes should have been given a second or third take.
The story (novel), the characters and the setup of "The Name of the Rose" build the fundament for an intelligent, intriguing and memorable thriller. The experience is diminished by a (at times) sloppy screenplay, that introduces a few conveniences too much. Depth is traded off for something that almost feels like a happy ending. None the less, it will stick with you, if you liked it or not. There just aren't (m)any movies comparable to it even 25 years later...