The Name of the Rose 1986

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...

The killings were by an old guy... Because of a comedy book?!

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.

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...

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.

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 old guy orchestrated all the killings. And the reason for all the murders ( a book about comedy?? Seriously??) 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.