Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

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.

room102 Basically, it's a mix of Sherlock Holmes in a 14th century monastery and science vs. religion.Fantastic film, everything about it is excellent: Production, acting, writing, cinematography, score, makeup. Great directing with excellent atmosphere, but realistic and surreal. Each and everyone in the cast is great, with an honorary mention to Ron Perlman and F. Murray Abraham.A great bunch of weird people in the cast (I recall watching the "behind the scenes" and the director(?) said that he wanted unusual-looking people).It's hard to believe that this movie wasn't nominated even for one academy award.

kikkapi20 The author's unique and thoughtful plot, which introduced a portion of the enlightenment coming that would pull the dark out of the Dark Ages within its 600+ pages, as well as sui generis dialogue, were handled better than well by screenwriters Andrew Birkin, Gérard Brach, Howard Franklin, and Alain Godard in Jean-Jacques Annaud's wonderful production. All the actors delivered fine performances, particularly the elder statesman Connery (whose career was faltering a bit at this stage), along with the young Slater. Rising up against the inequity of the Church's authority, to fight the shadowy conspiracy lying within the monastery, using only guile and intelligence, The Name of the Rose proved to be one of the most underrated movies of the 80s. I'd say that one of Sean's best performances, in a career of them, helped to make that so. P.S.Need thinking!

martynsommer I recently went back in time 30 years. First, I decided to complete Umberto Eco's first novel, The Name of the Rose, after having tried many times without success. Then, upon eventual completion (it took around two months),I re-watched the movie, which I had initially seen about 27 years ago.My general impression of the movie was that the writers hadn't understood the novel at all. The arbitrary narrative that they chose to select from the 600 plus pages had very little to do with the point Eco was trying to make (which seems to have been lost on Jean-Jacques Annaud and crew). However, considering that most people who watch this movie won't have read the book (and I was guilty of this on my original viewing), this film still works as the forerunner of medieval murder mystery movies.Both Sean Connery and an adolescent Christian Slater are great in their roles as Franciscan monk and novice apprentice, respectively. Connery as the Sherlock Holmes-like Brother William is especially ideal for the part. His penetrating one liners are delivered with classic virtuoso. Another positive point is that this movie doesn't feel dated, mainly due to the competent cinematography and colorful cast of assorted freaks.For those who have read the book and hold it in high esteem, this film will not hold much stead and will ultimately disappoint. The characters are all one dimensional, as opposed to the complex figures of the novel. Furthermore, the focus on the love interest for Adso is quite lame and the choice between the girl and the church that he makes at the end borders on cliché. There are a lot of minor characters who make a brief appearance for no particular reason, leaving the viewer perplexed.This is by no means a bad film. It's just not The Name of the Rose that Umberto Eco brilliantly and painstakingly created. The book has the potential to change our fundamental processes of thinking. The movie is just an interesting historical drama.