This could have been really good. An interesting beginning mystery and investigation, a little nice atmosphere inside the monastery and seeing what's going on, with the the mystery deepening a little over time. The protagonist is intelligent and thoughtful, and he's helping to guide an apprentice. There's a bit of discussion about religious beliefs. Nice subtle music. It feels like a well-made film in regards to the cinematopgraphy and does not look or feel old.

And then the story drops like a stone.

And the answer to the mystery is really bad...

[spoiler] The killings were by an old guy... Because of a comedy book?! [/spoiler]

It's very bad and one of the worst ways i can think of to resolve a mystery like this. It's not deep or interesting or fulfilled any scrap of potential.

[spoiler] Such as, maybe the killings were something lovecraftian related. Or a clever serial killer. Or just some other reason normal or not, but at least not an old guy killing because he didn't want people reading a comedy book... [/spoiler]

[spoiler] And to anyone reading this who hasn't seen the film, it's because this is the 1300s, the monk doesn't want people reading a comedy book because he says it's not good for them. That's it. [/spoiler]

I like. Of course this is only a tiny fraction from Eco's original work. But that's excused. Can't put all that in a single movie.

I must admit that I always liked history. Thus, it's almost impossible that I'd dislike such a movie. I profoundly enjoy that this isn't a Hollywood production. It's dark. It's dirty. It's how you'd picture the Middle Ages. Hollywood would polish such a movie - in a bad way. There's much attention to details. Ranging from the lovely books, costumes, tonsures (which are a crome against fashion!) and medieval instruments. The actors from different European countries bringing in their own accents and languages. That helps immersion since some parts of Europe, in particular the church, were shaped by immigration back then. Plus: Sean Connery! Always nice to spot him in a non-Bond movie. His character is some sort of medieval Sherlock Holmes.

The story is okay-ish. As I said, it's not as complex as the book and many religious and philosophical aspects were dialed down. But it's sort of a who-dunnit with some twists and red hearings. It's not the best detective story ever but entertaining for the most part. I don't think it's convincing that such an [spoiler]old guy[/spoiler] orchestrated all the killings. And the reason for all the murders ([spoiler] a book about comedy?? Seriously??[/spoiler]) isn't very convincing - or badly explained.

There's also parts I don't like: half of the people are dimwits. The villagers are like savages. Why? I'd picture the average peasant to be a capable farmers. Some of the monks seem to be mentally ill (or possessed by bad spirits indeed). I'd picture monks to be the intellectual elite of that time. The assistant boy is also strange. Sometimes he's quite clever sometimes he looks like a total idiot.

**_Murder mystery at a gloomy abbey during the Dark Ages with Sean Connery_**

In 1327, a Franciscan monk and his pupil (Connery and Christian Slater) arrive at a monastery in northern Italy to attend an important theological Roman Church conference. When monks are found dead in mysterious ways, William (Connery) winds up being the Medieval version of Sherlock Holmes. While he seems to figure the mystery out due to the evidence, a mirthless inquisitor is called in and sees things differently (F. Murray Abraham). Ron Perlman plays a hunchback and Michael Lonsdale the Abbot.

Based on Umberto Eco’s 1980 book, “The Name of the Rose” (1986) is outstanding as far as locations, sets, costumes and make-up go. Anyone interested in a shadowy drama with the dreary Gothic ambiance of the Middle Ages, this is the film to see. It’s helped by Connery’s towering performance, marked by his nonchalant confidence. Slater is also excellent as the inquisitive novice. Meanwhile Valentina Vargas as the feral peasant girl is yet another highlight (there’s some nudity, just a heads up).

The murder mystery is decent enough and there are interesting theological debates, but this is mostly a commentary on the good, the bad and the ugly of Medieval Catholicism. Remember, there was good reason for the Protestant Reformation that started less than 200 years later. I advise using the subtitles, as this is a dialogue-driven piece filled with mumbled Latin words and unusual names; it will help you understand the convoluted goings-on.

Speaking of which, the film seems weighed down and needed a rewrite to make the story more compelling. Yet it’s still well worth checking out for those interested and it influenced many movies, like “Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves” (1991). Fans of "Black Death" (2010) should appreciate it, although it’s not on that level of greatness; the contemporaneous “Season of the Witch” too. Those films, however, are more conventionally entertaining. This one’s more along the weighty lines of “The Bridge of San Luis Rey" (2004), which most people hated, but I appreciated.

The flick runs 2 hours, 11 minutes, and was shot at a replica of the monastery on a hilltop outside Rome (exteriors and some interiors) while most interiors were done at Eberbach Abbey, Germany, over 700 miles to the north; the mountain scenes were shot nearby in Taunus Mountains, Hessen, Germany.

GRADE: B-

Recently I saw a restored version of "The Black Pirate" - made in 1926 and that was in far better condition that the print I saw of this 1986 iteration of the cracking Umberto Eco novel. Set amidst the fear that beset the Christian world during the Holy Inquisition, we find ourselves at a remote abbey run by Michael Lonsdale. There is to be a gathering to facilitate a theological debate between the Franciscans and the Vatican. To that end, "William of Baskerville" (Sean Connery) and his novice "Adso" (Christian Slater) have travelled to this rather bleak location. Their arrival is tainted with sadness and mystery, though: a young monk has mysteriously died. "Baskerville" asks permission to look into it and is soon inveigled in a complex investigation that is proving distinctly perilous for almost all at this abbey. What is the secret? Can they deduce that before the arrival of the dreaded "Bernardo Gui" (F. Murray Abraham), the powerful instrument of the church who thinks nothing of burnings at the stake? This is a great story of medieval intrigue that is well enhanced here by a strong supporting cast - notably an almost unrecognisable Ron Perlman as "Salvatore"; Feodor Chaliapin Jr. is really quite intimidating as the Venerable "Jorge" and Michael Habeck's "Brother Berengar" has something creepy and distinctly un-Christian about him. As the story progresses we realise that this is actually a story about not just fear of the Inquisitors - but of the very power of the written word. Of the power of education and enlightenment - and the lengths some will go to keep the poor - potently exemplified here by Valentina Vargas - in their place. The cinematography of this dark, cold and unforgiving place adds richness and a malevolence to this film that really does resonates an effective eeriness - an evil, almost. Connery and Slater? Well perhaps not my first choice here - but they are not terrible and the former does bring a little gravitas to the role that just about works. Given all the dross that's getting 4K upgrades these days, surely this one has to merit a bit of TLC.

Bookish or Boorish?

The Name of the Rose is directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud and based on the novel of the same name written by Umberto Eco. It stars Sean Connery, Christian Slater, F. Murray Abraham, Helmut Qualtinger, Elya Baskin & Michael Lonsdale. Music is scored by James Horner and cinematography by Tonino Delli Colli.

Sean does Sherlock the Monk.

It's one of those film's that I just can't get into, three times I have tried but it's now consigned to the recycle bin, never to be unearthed again. I see there is great artistry there, it's very literate and the mystery element is strong, but it saps my strength to the very last. Connery is miscast because he plays it as nudge nudge wink wink detective fare, and film strains too hard to be some intellectual medieval musing on inquisitional power, berserker religion and the search for truth. Now I like gloomy moods, especially when part of some Gothic architecture, but even with the delightful weirdness of this monastery and the even weirder haircuts, I find it hard to sit still, such is the haphazard directing of the plot. In all honesty, the makers really would have been better off just making another Sherlock Holmes movie and setting it in a monastery. Now that would be fun...

This wants to be a paean to Arthur Conan Doyle, a brain teaser and an observation on some tricky subjects, but the mix doesn't work, sadly, for me anyway. Because I don't like it doesn't mean it's a bad film, clearly it is loved by many and has things of value to a discerning viewer. But to me, no, leaves me cold and frustrated. 5/10