The Name of the Rose (1986)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Too much of everything

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

When I was 15, I found a book, Name of the Rose. This book was different because teached me about history and the main people's value: the trust. Many friend asked me what is the reason why this book was great to me and I answered them that it was very dificult to read and to understand and I had to concentrate many time. I recomend you read it. It's a cool oportunity to learn. I suggest that you read it, I am sure that you will find things that you never have founded.

I am going to check this movie as a movie. The book doesn't count. yeah, it is based on a big novel, but a movie most stand by itself.What do you get from an ambitious director, ambitious screenwriters and a really giant project? You either get a really great movie or whatever the hell the last airbender is.Everything in this movie is great: From the medieval era locations to the photography, to the casting, to the dialog, to the scenography, to the acting. The ending feels rushed: you've been building this movie into a climax that just shine for a second and then dies. Then the ending comes promptly. Sure, everything in the end is solved, but it leaves you unsatisfied none the less.Great movie from a really hard to read novel. Watch it and bring the popcorn.

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.

I've notice that the original title of this film is 'Der Name der Rose' which suggests that it was originally a German film, despite the fact that it is in English and that it has English actors. Maybe it is because the book was originally in German, though I have not read the book, so I cannot really comment on that (and I am not so sure about the origins of this film, though I have always believed that it was an English film).The thing that stands out for me in this film is not just the setting, which is a very dark and dirty Medieval monastery where the actions of the monks are basically ignore by the inhabitants (there is a suggestion that one of the monks is a pedophile, and there is another scene where one of the main characters has sex, and even though the main character works it out, he says and does nothing about it). If our belief of the medieval monk is a pious and saintly follower of God, then this film goes about and completely destroys it.The Name of the Rose is basically a murder mystery, and Sean Connery, a Franciscan monk, comes along and begins to use his investigative skills to try to uncover what is going on. The murders, however, have a lot of religious undertones, and we have here a debate between whether laughter is actually spiritual or not. We have the Benedicteens, who believe that laughter is sinful and should be avoided at all costs, and then we have the Franciscans who believe that laugher is a gift from God that should be embraced and experienced. We even settle down to a theological debate over that very point.However, the film is about a book, or a very specific book, and that is Aristotle's second part of the Poetics, and that is the one that deals with comedy (which, by the way, we do not have, but we do have his first part, which deals specifically with tragedy). It is suggested that this book is actually in possession of the monks in their library, where they keep a collection of all the books that they deem to be dangerous, but because they are books, they will not destroy. However this book they consider to be exceedingly dangerous, and will go out of their way to actually kill anybody who as looked inside.When I was much younger I started watching this movie but ended up becoming bored with it because it did not portray the medieval setting that I wanted to see, and that is of shiny castles, beautiful heroes, and magical feats. Instead what we have is a medieval world that is dark, dirty, and probably much closer to what life was really like back then rather than our rather fantastic views of this world.