The Name of the Rose is an ejoyable thriller with a nice who-done-it taste. It isn’t a movie to run in the background while you are doing something else, though. You need to watch it and you will be rewarded.
Sean Connery is a sensational actor and I am always thrilled when I come across older movies of his. Sometimes they are weird (Zardoz) and sometimes they are awesome (The Name of the Rose). Be aware, this is Christian Slater’s first movie role, so stick with it. I almost turned it off when I saw him.
Based in the 1300s, Connery and Slater are a monk and novice who make their way to a central abbey for high level meetings. Upon arrival they find that one of the brothers in the abbey has died and many suspect suicide. This one event kicks off a murder mystery presented in a tantalizing manner. Connery the wise Sherlock Holmes type and Slater the younger Dr. Watson. As they move close to the truth, the pope’s people show up and try to end the investigation. F. Murray Abraham plays a spectacular role as the pope’s lackey.
What I enjoyed about The Name of the Rose:
- Clean movie making – With the exception of one scene involving Slater and a peasant girl, it is a relatively clean movie from a violence, sex, language standpoint.
- Plot twists – You’ll think you have it figured out in the first 20 minutes, but you don’t.
- Ron Perlman – Playing a realist among the devote, Perlman is caught up in Abraham’s net. His personality and acting is dynamic and great.
- Cinematography – Gorgeous and the sets are wonderfully done. If you don’t think the 1300s were a filthy, slimy, disgusting mess now, you will after you watch this movie.
What I didn’t enjoy about The Name of the Rose:
- Nothing – Seriously, it’s a well done movie that will keep your attention.
A who-done-it set in the 1300s that is wonderfully acted and played, The Name of the Rose is a great movie to watch when you have the time to dedicate to following along.