X
- 1986
- R
- Twentieth Century Fox
- 2 h 10 m
- 1986
- R
- Twentieth Century Fox
- 2 h 10 m
Summary An intellectually nonconformist friar investigates a series of mysterious deaths in an isolated abbey.
Directed By: Jean-Jacques Annaud
- 1986
- R
- Twentieth Century Fox
- 2 h 10 m
- 1986
- R
- Twentieth Century Fox
- 2 h 10 m
The Name of the Rose
54
7.8
Where to Watch
Summary An intellectually nonconformist friar investigates a series of mysterious deaths in an isolated abbey.
Directed By: Jean-Jacques Annaud
Where to Watch
Top Cast
Metascore
Mixed or Average
Based on 12 Critic Reviews
54
42% Positive
5 Reviews
5 Reviews
50% Mixed
6 Reviews
6 Reviews
8% Negative
1 Review
1 Review
Metascore
Mixed or Average
Based on 12 Critic Reviews
54
42% Positive
5 Reviews
5 Reviews
50% Mixed
6 Reviews
6 Reviews
8% Negative
1 Review
1 Review
Ribald, wry and even, from time to time, suspenseful, The Name of the Rose is actually a movie-movie -- rich in Hollywood convention, dense with images, with muscular performances (the principals play their types to the maximum), with good, old- fashioned movie stuff. Never a dull moment. How very unlikely. [24 Oct 1986, p.D1]
The Name of the Rose spins a whopping good tale, a medieval murder mystery that only those with seriously damaged attention spans will find hard to enjoy. [29 Sept 1986, p.63]
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 24 User Ratings
7.8
79% Positive
19 Ratings
19 Ratings
21% Mixed
5 Ratings
5 Ratings
0% Negative
0 Ratings
0 Ratings
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 24 User Ratings
7.8
79% Positive
19 Ratings
19 Ratings
21% Mixed
5 Ratings
5 Ratings
0% Negative
0 Ratings
0 Ratings
A murder mystery set in a medieval abbey with a great cast and of a lot of religious and philosophical motives. It is based on the book of the same name by Umberto Eco and it is his most known work. Because Umberto Eco is a medievalist, philosopher and great novelist it is a great book but definitely not for everyone. Remark: It is a good movie but not an ideal adaptation as it would be hardly possible to fit in all the stuff of the book (Also the book is darker and has a different ending). The story starts when Franciscan friar William of Baskerville travels to an abbey in norther Italy with his pupil the novice Adso of Melk. There the Franciscans want to debate with papal emissaries about the poverty of Christ. This means basically if the church should be allowed to amass money and possessions (A lost cause as being pope or church dignitary is a lucrative job that no one wants to give up). Secondary the abbey is famous for its library including translating and copying books. William who is famous for his deductive skills figures out when they arrive that a monk has died shortly before his arrival and is ask by the abbot to solve this as the circumstances are puzzling. With this set up the story starts. I like it really well. It is full of ideologies or better said interpretations of believes, philosophical problems, clashing characters and has good twists. The medieval setting works great and I never doubted the atmosphere nor the setting. It feels organically crafted and the strong cast completes this movie. Lets directly continue with the cast. Sean Connery as William of Baskerville gives a great performance. He has deductive skills close to the level of Sherlock Holmes but is far more adept at social interactions (Some will say less would be hard to archive. Just ask Dr. Watson about this;-). Christian Slater plays Adso of Melk the novice and pupil of William. He is the Doctor Watson to his Sherlock Holmes but is different too. He is young and a bit naive but not stupid or lets say he has not the life experience. Another great performance by this great actor. Then there is Murray Abraham as Bernardo Gui. He is an excellent adversary or rival for William. A magnificent performance as he creates a lot of emotion in the viewer. From the rest of the cast I will praise Michael Londsdale as the Abbot (Forgot if he was even named in the movie), Feodor Chaliapin jr and Ron Pearlman (yes that one) as Salvatore. A strong cast with a lot of good actors. I must praise the sets too as everything looks authentic. Some parts were filmed in Germany in the Ebersbach Abbey, some in castle Molin de Aragon but the most impressing was a specially created set build in Prima Porta which was back then one of the biggest sets in movie history. They did a lot to archive the style and visuals and I praise them here for this. I think I continue with my final statement. Overall this is an excellent movie with lots of interesting themes. The cast fully delivers and it was enjoyable. I must also admit that it is not for everyone as it could be to complex or confusing. This makes a recommendation nearly impossible as you could fully agree or ask yourself if we have even seen the same movie. Lets say the murder mystery at least should be enjoyable for nearly everyone and the philosophical and religious themes at least for some.
Report
The "critics" score on this movie are laughable. The critics were simply too shallow and dumb to appreciate the movie for what it is. As soon as it isn't the average mindless Hollywood flick, they give it bad reviews.
Fact is, that this movie is a pretty good "detective" story set in a very convincing, gloomy Italian monestary in the dark ages. The set and the film making of The Name Of The Rose is still stunning more than 30 years later. There are only some minor things that could have been improved - like the ending.
Report
What this movie needs is a clear, spare, logical screenplay. It's all inspiration and no discipline.
Whether these Hollywood touches will make the film appealing to the Rambo crowd is doubtful. By all means, read the book first. [24 Sept 1986]
Yes, it is splendid that anyone would take on so formidable a project as Eco’s 500-page chambered nautilus of a novel. Yes, this certainly feels like a 14th-Century Italian abbey, bleak, drafty and forbidding. Yes, it looks like it too--the 14th-Century as cast by Federico Fellini, every face a grotesque. But no, sad to say, it isn’t a perfectly marvelous film.
It's a richly appointed production that's hard to take seriously since the monks all look vaguely like Marty Feldman.
You want misery? he gives you misery—dark, drear, suppurating medieval oppressiveness; monotony? he gives you that too, lots and lots of monotony; subhuman grotesquerie and primitive superstition? not to worry: this guy didn't direct Quest for Fire for nothing.
[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]
Report
The setting of the movie is very interesting, something you rarely see. The dialogues and story are also interesting. The actors are great and famous.
Report
Of intrigue, about a mysterious sacrilegious crime that occurred in an isolated abbey. The atmosphere provokes both chills and disgust; one of its weak points is the slow development of the plot. To see for Sean Connery in his honorable memory. Long life.
Report
While Connery and Slater provide our eyes (and brains) to look into a world where power corrupts and mankind is in a state of physical and mental reduction, the film drags at a snail's pace with a climax that doesn't quite reach a satisfying payoff. Otherwise, the film is well shot and it does create an atmosphere that is discomforting while emphasizing the harshest realities of the Middle Ages. Worthy enough to see once.
Report
Production Company
Constantin Film,
Cristaldifilm,
Les Films Ariane,
Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF),
Allied Filmmakers,
FR 3 Cinéma,
RAI Radiotelevisione Italiana
Release Date Sep 24, 1986
Duration 2 h 10 m
Rating R
Tagline A Medieval Murder Mystery
Awards
David di Donatello Awards
• 5 Wins & 6 Nominations
Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists
• 3 Wins & 5 Nominations
German Film Awards
• 2 Wins & 3 Nominations
