How sad is this?

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

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

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Prophecies of the Apocalypse and mysteriously dying monks make for an effective murder mystery thriller set in an isolated, Fourteenth Century Benedictine abbey. Sean Connery looks like he might have been made for the role of William von Baskerville, exuding a worldly wisdom to go with his venerable appearance. His young ward Adso (Christian Slater) does appear somewhat a lightweight by comparison, though the Franciscan brothers do complement each other quite well. The story turns on a virtually unknown sect called the Dolcinites, notorious for murdering wealthy priests and bishops who corrupted the Christian principles of poverty. An intriguing aspect of the story resulted in a debate on whether Christ owned the clothes he wore, something I've never even had occasion to consider before. Some of the story elements get a bit confusing and muddled, although the Sherlock Holmes type instincts of Brother William eventually discern the cause of deaths at the abbey, even if he has to place his own life in jeopardy at the hands of the Grand Inquisitor, Bernardo Gui (F. Murray Abraham). There's an effective sequence that takes place in the labyrinthine alleys of the abbey's secretive library, home to volumes of forbidden books and texts that their protector wishes to remain undiscovered. And there's a monumental test of Adso's vow of celibacy that he monumentally fails. Needless to say, this is an offbeat murder mystery in an offbeat setting, and made with an eye toward bump in the night creepiness. Say your prayers before and after watching.

I read the book written by Umberto Eco three or four times over the years and it is still an outstanding masterpiece - an exquisite thinker, a sharp and witty writer and someone with a great expertise in history, philosophy, and theology - not many writers have such an immense background they can use to make such a fine piece of literature. Like the book the movie directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud gives us a little glimpse into the life of people living in the Middle Ages. Sean Connery as William of Baskerville plays superb, Christian Slater as Adson of Melk is a rising star, and all the other actors play good to very good- a well-composed cast (not to mention Ron Perlman as a hunchbacked monk). The movie really got a feel of authenticity. The only aspect I have to complain about are some of the changes done regarding the book - well, imo they are no improvement - especially the almost happy-ending regarding the rose named girl (in the book it is indicated that she would burn with the two monks in Avignon after trial) and as Bernardo Gui (the inquisitor) is a historical person - he did not die in real life (and in the book) like in the movie depicted. Eichinger (the producer or whoever is responsible for those changes) did imo regarding the ending of the movie too much sugar-coating for the audience. For those unnecessary but important changes, I got at least to distract one or two points. Anyway - still a magnificent movie.

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.

It was the most realistic movie I have watched about medieval times' church and its administrations. Make ups, costumes and the character choices were just right. The places, the castle the atmosphere can make you believe that there used to be cameras at that time. Other than that the gist was very clear and on the point. No explanation needed about that I am sure. And is also a bit too easy to catch that pro-viewers might not like the movie that much. BUT I really believe that there are plenty of people that has to see/understand and deduce things from this movie. For most of them this movie had to be easily perceivable. My favorite subject and my favorite era, definitely loved the movie. But only thing missing was it making me "woo" that's why it is not a 10/10.