Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Got more questions about news letters?
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
A great adaptation of the book.
Connery masters the film with a plot of exciting mystery that exposes well the period of the time portrayed.
One of the most meticulous productions on film. But no gunfire, so a low rating in the USA
Beautiful, very detailed and realistic.
It's, in my opinion, a great adaptation of the novel, at least almost the whole movie. It also has a self-personality and introduces you in a wonderful way into that great atmosphere of the book has. And you can watch one of the best Connery's performance ever.
This Italian, French, German co-production is a strange mix of Sherlock Holmes in the Dark Ages (13th Cent) and can be alternately as drab as it is intriguing Connery, at times seems a little out of place as the bright investigative Franciscan monk ï¿ 1/2" seeking clues to uncover a serial killer (or killers) amongst the brethren of a Franciscan monastery. The international cast, mainly do justice to the bizarre occurrences within this somewhat messy Abby - that supposedly, performs the demanding task of translating the scriptures for its sumptuous Library! Itï¿ 1/2(TM)s interesting to note that a somewhat graphic sex scene was removed in some countries and edited for others but, the original was a little overindulged for its purpose and perhaps obviously placed for the sake of an ï¿ 1/2~adultï¿ 1/2(TM) certificate.
Much of the movie features several scenes of grotesque violence leading up to the burning-at-the-stake finale. Certainly not a movie for everyone but an interesting curio that cost more than it retrieved in some countries. James Hornerï¿ 1/2(TM)s haunting score came across as borrowing from an equally haunting epic of the 60s ï¿ 1/2Barabbasï¿ 1/2Â?. For those who like ï¿ 1/2~em strange & heavy.
At first I was like "Hah, this is some kind of Sherlock Holmes but a priest thing!", and then I was like "Oh, this is some kind of Sherlock Holmes but a priest thing!"
It does not deserve the evaluation that it has, it deserves a lot more, this film is one of the best films that I have seen (even for those who are not religious or catholic).
The film had actors, had a good soundtrack, a fantastic story that portrayed the season very well, and have wonderful scenarios.
One of the best movies ever. Highly recommend.
I first heard about The Name of the Rose when I played a board game called Mystery of the Abbey that bears some similarities to Clue, but was all about finding out which monk committed murder in their abbey. That’s when someone mentioned to me that there was a book and subsequent film about the exact same topic. I was instantly fascinated, and that interest only increased when I found out Sean Connery was the star. The idea of a murder being perpetrated in a holy place is an interesting concept, and having it investigated by a monk as well makes it even more intriguing. I always like murder mysteries, but when they are set in this kind of environment it ratchets up the tension because of how close-knit and insular their little society becomes. The Name of the Rose is at its best when it allows Sean Connery and Christian Slater to be detectives. Their relationship is a good one, because that master-apprentice connection makes it so Connery has to vocalize to Slater what he’s thinking, and at the same time that tells us. There was plenty of suspicion thrown around in the film, and I never felt like the identity of the culprit was obvious. It helped that so many of the monks seemed insane, disgusting, or at least unpleasant. That made it so you could never get comfortable in this location, and it was easy to suspect everyone. The final reveal of why the crimes were committed was crazy, and didn’t quite live up to the severity of the murders, but at least I didn’t see it coming. I had some big problems with certain subplots that were clumsily tacked on to the film. In particular the romance/lust story between a peasant woman and some of the characters was an awkward distraction that I found annoying. Knowing how little it played into the plot makes me wish I had just skipped the whole thing. I think it was supposed to add some extra tension in the conclusion, but because I was not at all invested in that character it was pointless to me. There were a few other details that felt like they either needed to be fleshed out more or jettisoned from the script. I think all this extra nonsense was added to deflect suspicion from the real murderer, but I’m not sure it was needed. I still think there’s a kernel of a good idea in The Name of the Rose, but it didn’t come together into a film that lived up to that potential for me.
Excellent. The story, plot, and (in my opinion) production is awesome. The direction great. I always felt I was watching people from those times, more or less... The less is because of Connery and Slater, which I think they both sucked not at acting, but talking. They just didn't nail the tones and ways of speaking. The clear Sherlock Holmes tones and references weren't good.
But anyways... Great movie