fredyrios When I was 15, I found a book, Name of the Rose. This book was different because teached me about history and the main people's value: the trust. Many friend asked me what is the reason why this book was great to me and I answered them that it was very dificult to read and to understand and I had to concentrate many time. I recomend you read it. It's a cool oportunity to learn. I suggest that you read it, I am sure that you will find things that you never have founded.

Filipe Neto This film is the cinematographic adaptation of Umberto Eco's homonymous novel, telling the story of a series of mysterious murders inside an isolated Benedictine abbey, in the middle of the Italian Alps during the Middle Ages. Its an excellent adaptation, as the most relevant content of the novel is passed on to the screen pleasantly and rigorously. As its a period film, its not uncommon to see some historically dubious details but, since the more obvious ones come from the original book, we cannot blame the film crew. Moreover, I didn't see any situation so obvious that it took value to the film, directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud. Sean Connery and Christian Slater are the central actors in the plot, in the role of two Franciscan friars sent to the abbey for a meeting with a papal delegation. They will try to solve the deaths of the monks, their hosts, before the arrival of the delegates. The two actors were at their best and the same can be said of Michael Lonsdale (the abbot), Feodor Chaliapin Jr. (the blind Brother Jorge) and F. Murray Abraham (the inquisitor Bernardo Gui), who shone in the secondary roles. The film makes a real effort of realism: the locations were handpicked, the scenarios faithfully reconstruct the abbey described by Eco, the costumes, the choice of the ugliest extras, even the black ink bath given to the pigs, everything was thought to recreate the medieval environment, which is truly one of the great advantages of the film. Some of the scenes are worthy of anthology, such as the scenes in the labyrinth or the scene in which Slater is seduced by a young peasant (Chilean actress Valentina Vargas). This film is, definitely, a good example of what must be a period film.

room102 Basically, it's a mix of Sherlock Holmes in a 14th century monastery and science vs. religion.Fantastic film, everything about it is excellent: Production, acting, writing, cinematography, score, makeup. Great directing with excellent atmosphere, but realistic and surreal. Each and everyone in the cast is great, with an honorary mention to Ron Perlman and F. Murray Abraham.A great bunch of weird people in the cast (I recall watching the "behind the scenes" and the director(?) said that he wanted unusual-looking people).It's hard to believe that this movie wasn't nominated even for one academy award.

gavin6942 An intellectually nonconformist monk (Sean Connery) investigates a series of mysterious deaths in an isolated abbey.First of all, thank you to whomever cast William Hickey. The man has not been in enough films, so it is great to see him here. Truly an underrated talent.Connery's character is said to be an amalgam of Sherlock Holmes and William of Occam. This is quite evident, with the way he treats Christian Slater very much like a young Watson. And even Occam was apparent following the belief that the easiest explanation was probably the correct one... this is, in effect, a Holmes tale with a medieval twist.The film did poorly at the box office in the United States, playing at only 176 theaters and grossing only $7.2 million on a $17 million budget. However, it was popular in many parts of Europe and had a worldwide gross of over $77 million. It received generally positive reviews from American and Italian critics. Why Italian, who knows? But the critics were right, and this is a great film. How it failed to go over well in American is a mystery.