User Reviews

That's it. Watch the tv series and be yourself the critic. You should trust yourself to see it this adaptation is good or not.

That being said, I'd like to say that I've read the book on which these series is based, a monumental thriller set on the middle ages by the master Umberto Eco. I've seen the first two episodes, and I find myself thinking this is a nice start. Strangely to me, I come to see the reviews on this site and I'm baffled. Honestly, I really don't know what they saw. John Turturro is a great William of Baskerville and overall the setting is good. There is a bit of cgi on the landscapes, but mixed properly with real life places that look beautiful. Don't let these people misguide you, who knows what interests do they seek.

A lot of money has been spent on this production, and it shows. John Turturro is great, as always, and the supporting cast includes stalwarts such as Sebastian Koch, Rupert Everett, and Michael Emerson. But you might want to hold off on making the popcorn. The Name of the Rose is a big book, but Jean-Jacques Annaud showed us that it's possible to present it on film in just a couple of hours or so; nevertheless, this series has been expanded to 8 one-hour episodes. You might expect the producers would want to explore plot points from the book in greater detail, but that hasn't really happened. Instead the writers have been busy updating Eco's masterpiece to speak more directly to contemporary issues. In the first two episodes (all I've seen of the series), you can tick off feminism, immigration, torture, gay rights--you name it (perhaps your time would be better spent at the microwave after all). When it focuses on Eco's story, the series can be riveting, and I'm eager to learn more about the library. So what if Damian Hardung as Adso of Melk seems to belong to a different century?--that was also the impression I had of Christian Slater as Adso in Annaud's 1986 film, and it didn't ruin the story for me. John Turturro, on the other hand, is perfect as William of Baskerville, even if we won't be forgetting Sean Connery right away, and there's nary a hint of a Brooklyn accent in his delivery. So I guess I'm in for the long haul.

I agree with much that has already been said by Trademarcdesigns and Coventry. The 1986 adaption of The Name of the Rose was very well made. Just about everything was good about that film and that's why it managed to leave an everlasting impression on me aswell. Atmosphere was great. But not so much on this mini-series. I can't help but feeling that the characters on this mini-series are modern people in historical costumes. I wouldn't blame the actors though. Even the best actors cannot do miracles if the film is otherwise bad.

For me, this is like The Name of the Rose meets Game of Thrones. More action and naked skin with the expense of atmosphere and realism. There are just too many TV-series and films these days with that problem. I can't also help but feel that whoever put this thing together just wanted to raise awarness on current social issues and didn't really care about the original novel at all. He could've chosen just about any novel to work on. So why butcher this classic?

This adaption reminds me of some other similiar fictional historical mini-series or films that I've seen in the past few years. Somewhat agreeable entertainment if I have nothing else to do, but a year or two later I can barely even remember seeing them. If I compared this to the book or the old film, it wouldn't deserve more than 5/10. But 6/10 is for those who haven''t read the book or seen the film. Six stars might still be too much though..

In short: there is a reason why the central character in Eco's work is named after Occam and nods to Sherlock Holmes. It has to do with presenting complexity and then dealing with it though Occam's maxim and Holmes' deductive reasoning. Yet, the writers of this mess of an adaption seem to have not understood Eco or Rose at all and simply opted for injecting and proliferating haphazard disorder to mimic it complexity when it is just -- mediocre plot device and script-writing and. Sorry but gibberish is not complexity because it meanders, and proliferation non sequiter subplots are not semiotics just because your brain has to also work when decoding nonsense . It goes without saying as well that labyrinth is meaningless if you just proliferate blind ally diversions and don't understand it is the great classics Eco is presenting as the guide, the key.

If you've got that liberal arts degree for undergrad and loved history and literature, like I did, (before having to turn to something that can make some money for grad) they you probably knew about this series planning and had enthusiastic and positive expectations. The original film version of Name of the Rose was not bad, it was a decent adaption of Umberto's Eco's intricate but certainly his most approachable book, but it certainly could be much better fleshed out in a mini series length.

In addition to being a fan of Eco, I certainly am as well of John Turturro.

Sadly this series just doesn't work given the source material and talent. It is a serious disappointment; in fact a jumbled mess. Instead of using miniseries length to flesh out the complexity, tease the symbolism, and give us more of Eco, the writers went off the rails as well, distracting packing in all kinds of PC nods to contemporary issues that are not in Eco's novel. And even for "a loose adaptation" there is a continual sense of disjointed and artificially forced elements and messages that are not in Eco's work. Most galling -- but also telling -- metaphor for the utter humorlessness in the makers of this adaption is dropping emphasis on Aristotle's Poetics; whose dramatic theory, and utilization of humor, is what Eco is using. In the book we are immersed IN the Poetics, the author has structured he work so we are, while the character searches for it, along with a solution to the crime mystery, and this is not even attempted in this miniseries.

I spent about two years working in Italy and I have a high tolerance for the messiness of Italian productions, be they film, TV or contracting of goods or services. Things there are beautiful and interesting, but often don't work well. OK. I did not go into this adaption of name of the Rose expecting complete rationality or order. But there are so many artificial jumps in plot that it nears incoherence. Especially since none of it is really true to the core of Eco's work which has to do with the sequestration of knowledge, such as sublime and complex classics, and not for example some hamhanded lesson on immigration, class struggle, or violence toward women. Eco already had a strong and important social message with poverty and a church that lost its way, or whose future was being fought over. By throwing in the kitchen sink of social commentary this gets diluted to nothing.

I give this a six star, even though it is a four, since part of Eco is there, even if, with united irony -- it is hidden by the script writers' own nonsense.

Only a limited number of films that I watched during my youth managed to leave an everlasting impression on me, but Jean-Jacques Annaud's adaptation of Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose" is one of them. Even though we are 25 years later, and I've seen perhaps 15.000 films since then, I still remember practically every detail of that wondrously grim and mysterious film in which creepy monks were being killed off in a remote and petrifying old monastery. Although I tried a couple of times, I never found the courage to actually read Eco's source novel. It's just too thick, sorry. The 1986-masterpiece is urgently due for a re-watch, but instead I stumbled upon this Italian/German mini-series that allegedly was a lifelong dream-project for actor and producer John Turturro to realize. Come to think of it, it's actually quite surprising that it took more than 30 years for someone to make a new version! Seeing that Annaud's film is "only" a little over two hours long, I must assume that it threw a massive amount of Eco's book-content overboard. With 8 episodes of approximately 1 hour each, I'm sad to confess that "Il Nome Della Rosa" is too long and quite often balancing on the verge of boring. Also, I keep reading that the script differs immensely from the book, at least for what concerns the numerous sub plots surrounding the pivot murder mystery.

Turturro is great, but Sean Connery's charismatic image remains stuck in my brain as the one and only William of Baskerville; - wise Franciscan friar and Sherlock Holmes ahead-of-time. All the other, nevertheless adequate, actors can't even begin to measure themselves against the quality performances of the fantastic actors in the 1986 film, like F. Murray Abraham, Ron Perlman, Michael Lonsdale or William Hickey. The sole performance I rate higher comes from the fairly unknown Damian Hardung, who's portrayal of young novice Adso Von Melk is more authentic and convincing than Christian Slater's role.

Or, perhaps I just ought to stop comparing this with youth's nostalgia and simply acknowledge the multiple great aspects of this prestigious mini-series. The production values, for instance, are deeply impressive. The 14th century set-pieces, costumes and relics are astounding. Also, the history lessons processed into the screenplay are far more educational and compelling than anything you'll ever learn in school, and Tchéky Karyo has a brilliant supportive role as the megalomaniac Pope Giovanni XXII. If there's anything I firmly believe, it is that medieval Popes were exactly as deplorable and vile as him.

Let me preface this by stating I have not read the book nor seen the 80's Sean Connery movie version of this, but I was looking forward to this show since I like the actors and who doesn't like a good medieval tale? Unfortunately, after seeing two episodes, I have to wonder about the choices they've made with the story. They have a solid cast, a good plot to work with and exciting locations yet they chose to supplant the main story with the likes of mute forest nymphs and wailing gay Elon Musk. The side stories jump around confusingly, with so many plot strings they become hard to follow and a tangled mess. I think this is also a problem with the editing as the scenes cut strangely. I honestly have no idea what is going on in some of the side plots at this point. When the story focuses on what I assume is the main story of the monk murder mystery in the abbey, the show is entertaining, yet so far this is only a portion of each episode. Having said this, John Turturro is suitable as a medieval Sherlock Holmes, Rupert Everett is quite hilariously evil as Bernardo Gui, and Michael Emerson is sufficiently creepy as the Abbot, but the rest of the story is a mess.

I had mixed expectations about the new "The Name of the Rose" miniseries. On one hand I loved the book, and I loved the 1986 film by Jean-Jacques Annaud. On the other hand, I was aware of the compromises that Annaud had to make when adapting Umberto Eco's bestselling novel to the screen.

Fortunately, I think Eco (who sadly died before the series went into production) would be moderately content with the new adaptation. The first episode is not very good, but the later we get, the better it becomes.

Eco's "Il nome della rosa" is a multilayered treatise that focuses on mediaeval philosophy and church history, and is spiced up with a criminal intrigue that encourages you to keep reading. It is widely considered as one of the best novels ever written.

Annaud's 130-minute film concentrated on the crime plot, and had to leave out most of the fascinating background. The new 6-hour miniseries gave the filmmakers more space to explore more of the historical and religious context, and they have made decent use of this opportunity, though they have also made a few questionable choices.

The novel is written from the point of view of Adso of Melk, a young Benedictine novice, who in 1327 joins William of Baskerville, an English Franciscan monk with a Sherlockian mind, on a visit to a North Italian mediaeval monastery filled with monks from different European countries. They are supposed to attend a religious conference, but find a murder instead.

Annaud's wonderful film was a vehicle for Sean Connery, who played Baskerville superbly, but perhaps with a slight overtone of arrogance, while the then 15-year-young Christian Slater struggled with insufficient material to give Adso the necessary depth.

In the miniseries, the balance is restored: the young German actor Damian Hardung who plays Adso of Melk is truly sensational, and effortlessly commands the much-expanded role. The beloved quirky American character actor John Turturro (who also co-wrote and co-produced the miniseries) gives us a refined, humble, intellectual, sharp-witted yet caring William of Baskerville. The duo has a phenomenal chemistry as master and pupil, one that is rarely seen on screen.

Like the 1986 Jean-Jacques Annaud film, this Italo-German adaptation of Eco's brilliant novel is shot in English, yet is cast with supporting actors from many European countries for whom English is not the native tongue.

This model of Euro co-productions usually fails, but here, it is justified and works reasonably well - after all, the 14th-century monks did came from different countries, and didn't all speak perfect Latin. Multilingualism was built into the European church life in the Middle ages.

While the main male characters are played by Brits and Americans, the supporting cast is mostly Italian and German, with a Frenchman and a Pole added to the mix. Alas, not all of the actors give equally good performances, and you're advised to turn on English subtitles while watching. 30 years ago, Annaud made better casting choices in a few cases - but all in all, the formula works.

Eco's novel is a near-perfect literary work, but it has one significant problem - it's extremely male-centric. The sole female character is reduced to an episodic appearance. The novel gives a one-sided account of Adso's romantic subplot in form of his inner dialogue, while the unnamed Girl (to whom the title alludes) is anonymous and generic. This may have been a conscious decision by Eco, but I've always found it the book's weakest spot.

The writers of the miniseries cleverly expanded the subplot of the Girl: they plausibly solved the problem of Eco not having written much for her, managed to make her an interesting character that has relevance today, and gave the actress Nina Fotaras a playground forvexploration. All that serves Adso very well, too, because we can now understand better why he fell in love with the Girl. I actually consider that decision an improvement over Eco's book - and that by itself is reason enough to watch the TV adaptation even if you know the novel well.

Then come the various villains and anti-heroes, led by Bernardo Gui, the fearsome Inquisitor. With the little screen time he was given in the 1986 film, F. Murray Abraham had created an acting masterpiece. Here, Rupert Everett has more time, and uses the time well. I'm not a big family of this actor, and normally find him rather wooden - but here, he's gives a solid, convincing villain, though less memorable than Abraham's.

Possibly the best part of Annaud's film was Ron Perlman's show-stealing, unforgettable portrayal of Salvatore, a babbling disfigured monk. It is difficult to imagine how another actor could follow Perlman's definitive Salvatore - so the miniseries opted for a watered-down monotone Perlman impression delivered by Stefano Fresi that works well only if you haven't see the 1986 film, and is the series' biggest disappointment if you have.

For a change, the casting of Michael Emerson as Abo of Fossanova, the Abbot, is a noticeable improvement over the 1986 Michael Lonsdale role. Emerson superbly embodies the inner conflicts that the Abbot is subjected to.

In an effort to provide some backstory for Gui, and to make room for some action sequences that could throw in some visual variety into what might otherwise be deemed a very "boring" production, the writers of the adaptation have diverged from Eco's plot in one significant way: they have invented a second female character, Anna, played by Greta Scarano.

I understand their motivation, and, in principle, their effort was justified. Eco himself chose to package his exploration of semiotics, philosophy and medieval history in form of a crime novel, to make the topic more accessible and appealing to a wider audience. And he has masterfully succeeded.

The miniseries expanded the female sub-plots to add both gender and cinematic diversity, and to escape some stereotypical tropes. They have done it rather gracefully with the Girl (the character already present in the novel, so the plot expansion is actually consistent with the spirit of the tale).

But with the second female, Anna, that they've invented, they have failed miserably - her story is artificial, borderline ridiculous, and is written in a way that embarrassingly confirms all the stereotypes it was seemingly trying to evade. Anna's subplot is superfluous and very out-of-style for the otherwise remarkable production. This, too, is a disappointment, yet one that shouldn't be a deterrent to the viewers.

There is something, though, than can be a deterrent: the terrible, misguided, utterly forgettable, heavy-handed, predictable, boring, flat and simplistic musical score by Volker Bertelmann, devoid of any subtlety. That is, unfortunately, something that did not surprise me at all, given that it is, after all, an Italian-German TV co-production. I had wished there was a way to turn the music off.

Much praise must be given, on the other hand, for the way the filmmakers have treated some other aspects of the Eco novel: the central dispute about the role of the church is portrayed very well. Of course Eco's complex, encyclopedic excursions into the fine points of the different factions and their motivations have been significantly condensed, but the remaining gist still gives enough food for thought, and is rather relevant in today's context of the scandals that surround the Catholic institution.

The visuals also work very well. Some CGI sequences could have been better, but the designers of the physical sets have done a phenomenal job in creating the abbey and the library - they are nearly exactly as I imagined them!

The scriptorium and the books are given sufficient attention, and are an extremely pleasant sight for anyone interested in letterforms. You can even watch the full traditional process of making paper - something that I myself have seen before, but I imagine most viewers never have.

"The Name of the Rose" is slightly uneven and has its flaws, but overall, it does justice to Umberto Eco's novel. It thrills just as much as the early seasons of "Game of Thrones", before the dragons, the magic and the undead have turned the political costume thriller into a fantasy spectacle.

The adaptation realistically transports you back to the 14th century Europe, and gives you a taste of what the life of those outside the minority of sword-wielding knights could have been.

It gives us a splendid master-student relationship that captures the spirit of Eco's book spot-on, and delivers a surprisingly beautiful love story that actually enriches Eco's writing with one more level that Umberto didn't write, but could have.

It begs the question whether it was a good idea to fill some of the time with swordfights and archery, but I understand the desire to try to broaden the audience. This desire to make the show appealing to less-literary audiences is evident in the casting of the elderly monk Jorge de Burgos.

In the miniseries, he is aptly portrayed by James Cosmo, whom the "Game of Thrones" crowd will remember as Jeor Mormont. In the 1986 film, Feodor Chaliapin Jr. was cast by Annaud, possibly due to his resemblence to the Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges, whom Eco jokingly referenced in his novel, and with whom he shared his fascination with labirynths and the Middle Ages. So the 2019 adapters swapped a Borges reference for a J. R. R. Martin reference. Signum temporis.

But as a whole, the show's creators Giaccomo Battiato, Andrea Porporati, Nigel Williams and John Turturro, as well as the rest of the cast and crew, have not disappointed, and if they have, then only slightly. "The Name of the Rose" is a passable transfer of Umberto Eco's novel to the small screen, and is actually one of the better things to watch if you want to get a bit of the European mediaeval feel.

While I agree with other reviews that some subplots can be a little distracting, they are nevertheless historically accurate and allow viewers, who are unfamiliar with the period, to understand the background of the main characters. Overall, one of the best series I have seen on the medieval period, highly recommended. The actors are all good or very good except for the woman who plays Margherita (who cannot act, she can't even scream "penitenziagite" without sounding terrible)

The Name of the Rose is a series based on the novel by Umberto Eco. This is an ambitious effort that has clearly seen no expense spared.

The result is an intriguing and enjoyable series, that blends Renaissance politics with a crime drama. Everything of the period is infused with a religiosity that is not only philosophical but also highly political. The church and state were inseparable and this point is driven home by the fact the key figure, a Franciscan friar is both giver of religious truths, as well as an arbiter of temporal justice.

Perhaps the closest counterpart to this series I can think of is 1990's production Cadfael, set in an earlier medieval period. So far The Name of the Rose is shaping up to offer something similar but whether it will be as polished as this earlier drama remains to be seen.

Beyond this the acting is best described as solid to excellent from all of the cast and the stories are well told. I do think its quite an accomplishment to take a book of this kind and transform it into a series.

So far The Name of the Rose looks promising. 7/10 from me.

If you try to match it to the novel, you are on the wrong path; the novel is a great work that is extremely difficult to portray on film. This series, however , makes a fairly successful attempt an interpreting not only the plot of the novel but its spirit and literary intention.

I've read the novel not one but three times. Still think that an accurate interpretation from it might be forged. So far, however, this series --all the while it's not quite up to matching the novel- in some ways fills up some of the holes that the book leaves open.

The 1986 movie made a good effort to bring the book to the screen, but appart from Sean Connery, Ron Pearlman and Valentina Vargas (the girl), the 2019 series cast is outmatched. Settings in some parts are better and on some other's lack; if you see both you shall be the judge. On the other hand, director's work is weaker than the 1986 movie but that's probabbly the sin of the script writers and the producers. Photography is great and really conveys the ambience of the place, a 14th century abbey.

Something that might or not bother you, is the incongruency of the weather; while the abbey and its immediacies are sheathed in snow, the woods surrounding it are of a greenery more suggesting of a central European summer than the winter setting it's suggested at the start of the series, with nary a snow patch which would surely remain at the lower grounds through most of the spring season in the lower alps.

To me, for sure, this is a script, direction and production fault, even if it's irrelevant to the plot developement.

OTOH, the cast and their performances are top notch. Most of them with the exception of Turturro, Karyo and Koch are fairly unknown to western viewers but all are quite solid performers and fully deliver.

In all it's a highly recommenadble series. My opinion; go for it!

The effort to follow the book (more than in the movie) is real.

But the result is puzzling and not really interesting.

The cast is questionable (Turturro is not convincing has a clever/ambiguous religious man nor as Ruppert Everet as an inquisitor full of hatred).

There is a lack of ambiance especially a lack of darkness.

Too bad 'cause it could have been a great mini-series.

I'm very sorry to say that this adaptation makes unnecessary changes to the book, and executes the climax very poorly. Adso's sin also goes unpunished, which dilutes a key theme of the book. They also mess up the murder mystery plot, which is the fun part of the book, that is the hook for all the philosophy. For modern audiences the original story has no strong female characters. They have tried to update the story, but inserting a Mary Sue like character does it no favours.

After watching the first episode I was extremely disappointed. Sure the costumes were wonderful and helpful in providing atmosphere but the writers decisions left me bored and disinterested. Umberto Eco's story was both pictorial and gripping yet the writers in this mess dilute it to such an extent that I kept thinking that there was something else I should be doing. Even when they strictly stick to the word's spoken by William of Baskerville and Adso it feels forced and artificial. As far as I'm concerned this conception of The Name of the Rose is mostly a fail.

Up to where I've watched the series, it is really good. Good solid acting. In some ways, the story stays closer to the book than the movie with Sean Connery. In other parts, new elements are introduced. Not sure these add any value to the story, but anyway, apart from that, it's quite intriguing. One huge blooper though: in one of the early episodes one of the monks mentions that he spent some time in Belgium. This is quite hilarious: Belgium as a country did not exist yet (was only established in 1830) ; Belgium as a name did not even in the remotest thoughts of the inhabitants of that area or any other country in Europe at that time.

Production design was beautiful, even when historically dubious. The lighting was wonderful, in places exquisite. The cinematography, with a few jarring exceptions, magnificent. Superb acting from an admirable cast.

All in all... it was awful.

The descent in a few strides from deep Alpine Winter to bucolic Springtime was doubtless highly symbolic but also marvellously risible, destroying my suspension of disbelief. Which only increased my ire at Adso's repeated romantic interludes which were not just an unnecessary interpolation but served to dispel the intensely claustrophobic atmosphere that should have dominated the whole story. The incessant cuts to explicative back-story and the introduction of extraneous characters to fill it out did nothing but contribute to opening broad vistas into what should have been narrowly confined. Oh, but because it's RAI Fiction there has to be extra titillation.

A paper mill? One of the strangenesses is that linen paper is an unrecognised material. When this is actually mentioned it is not a deepening of the mysteries but a laugh out loud idiocy. How could paper be unrecognised in a monastery that owns and operates its own paper mill?

So too the library itself. At least there is no attempt to elucidate the symbolism of the building as intended by Eco because the handsome building presented had too many floors, too many towers, too many doors and too many windows to be reasonably illustrative. (And probably not enough stairs.)

Five monks died in what should have been remarkable circumstances but you'd be forgiven for not noticing as relatively little was made of this.

Why they died. What secret Jorge though so important, hardly seems to matter because it is barely referred to tangentially and never brought out into the light. Someone who had not read Eco's book, or perhaps seen and well remembered the 1986 film, will come away without the least idea what all the fuss was about.

Granting that Adso's rather tedious philosophising of the novel was never going to make it onto prime time television, what remained as story and drama should be a mystery and to a degree a horror story. But drama and mystery and horror are dissipated by being utterly soulless.

Loved the way they portrayed the intelligent monk who is a 14th Century equivalent of Sherlock Holmes and the expose of the Catholic church's evil practitioners. I have ordered a book on the monk, Fra Dolcino of whom I knew nothing but about whom I intend to learn more.

Well shot, very well acted. I hated to see it end, but perhaps they'll give it a Season 2.

When you watch this serie, it is inevitable to compare it to the famous 1986 Annaud's masterpiece, and for me the real William of Baskerville will always be Sean Connery. With that being said, this is respectable production, that I have really enjoyed. In 8 episodes, the series develop some plots that unfortunately with the movie was not possible to explore due to time limit. There are however a few subplots that were clearly made up to reach the 50 minutes mark for each episode. An example is the Dolcino's and Anna's story, that was very underdeveloped and pretty much disappointing. For the rest I don't have anything to say: characters are interesting and charismatic.

The cast for the most part is excellent: I was really surprised by John Turturro interpretation, he represent really well the wise William of Baskerville, and did not let me down. Like I said at the beginning of this review, is not Sean Connery, but he gets pretty close to him. I was also very pleased in seeing Rupert Everett as Bernardo Gui. I think he perfectly fits the role of the villain, and I felt much hate for him. The actor was extremely convincing. Special mention goes to Fabrizio Bentivoglio as Remigio of Varagine, which was very teatrical in his acting and Stefano Fresi as Salvatore. I was a little bit disappointed Alessandro Boni as Dolcino: he is embarrassing. I don't know if he cannot speak English without an italian accent, or if writers created the character in this way, but he is too forced and instead to empathize with him, you laugh whenever he speaks.

The series has a good photography, I liked the framing, that highlights really well the mystery that surround the abbey. A big help comes also from the soundtrack, that i simply amazing.

This series can push younger people to read the book and watch the original movie. Both are really good products that need to be consulted.

Brilliant cast. Visual feast of an ancient abbey in historical France and the seedy crimes of monks. The factional fight for eminence within the fragmented Catholic Church into orders dominated by the Franciscans, Dominicans, Benedictine and Cistercians. Then there were the heretics that practice witch crafts. Fascinating medieval tale surrounding church pre-Lutheran times. Unless one has an adequate level (high) of biblical knowledge and the history of Christianity in Europe through the millennials, one is less likely to grasp the deeper contextual significance, thus hampering one's ability to enjoy the story. Reading Ecco's masterpiece in tandem while watching the TV version will greatly enhance the pleasure and illuminating details to the audience.

The 80's movie is one of my favorites and I have seen it several times, so I was curious about the serial and the differences. I want to describe my impressions by various aspects.

Which I prefer in the serial is the more convincing acting of Adso by Damian Hardung. IMO Christian Slater was not really the highlight in the 80's movie, because he rather looked like a naive, simple minded boy than an interesting, reflecting young man as it is the case with Hardung.

John Turturro is not really bad, but personally I prefer Sean Connery as William of Baskerville because he had some serenity, humor too, which I miss about Turturro (he generally looks grim and serious to me), also slight preferences to F. Murray Abraham for his wonderful acting as Bernardo Gui.

There is a big difference in the casting of the monks: while they decided to choose the average type of monk for the serial, the movie wanted to show extraordinary, weird characters. I presume that this is a point at which the spirits divide...some love it, some don´t like it. Personally I prefer the monks in the movie, because a movie or serial should have IMO a certain entertainment value as well, otherwise I could also see a documentary or mockumentary if all should appear 100 % historical realistic. (and it´s not completely utopian, that occasionally lived such types of monks in the past)

The screenwriting is another big difference. The thread of the main-story is sometimes lost within the serial because there are some side-shows and more detailed conversations about different topics. This is simply due to the nature of a serial, which needs more stuff to extend the lenght of the movie, but it brings no remarkable added value to me.

The movie has also a better direction, cinematography, editing and music but apart from these differences and the comparison with the movie, the serial is nevertheless worth to see because there are regrettably not so many serials about the Middle Ages without any fantasy/sci-fi-stuff.

The book and the movie are masterpieces. This serie spoils the original story by deviating from its storyline and not in a better way but rather in a french way( without inner purpose and in a life random but not clever way) maybe to prove the story can last for a while! Even the tricks that Baskerville used to elucidate mysteries and riddles have been Changed! Why? To gain independence from the movie? To serve the producer ego! The result is a little bit disappointing. You should have been more smart than Umberto Echo which is not needed and really hard. I'd rather watch again the movie instead! Which I did!

Whilst watching this new series, The Name of the Rose, I couldn't help thinking how much like Game of Thrones it was. There are differences for sure, as one is based on real history and the other is fantasy, but certainly The Name of the Rose had similar fantastic sets, locations and production values, as did the more famous series. There's a fair whack of intense politics and interesting character development too, and not a little torture, shock and violence, so familiar in Thrones. I liked the lead, a lovely character really well played, and not really comparable to the incomparable Sean Connery in any way. This is a new vision different to the original movie. If I had a quibble it is that some of the flashback sideline stories were unevenly presented, so much so that I wondered what was going on. The main theme though is clear as a bell and works a treat. There is a lot of suspense, delicious ups and downs, and, surprisingly, the investigations are intelligent for such a superstitious and pre-science age. I think one should remember that for that age religion held the same sway and power for ordinary folk that science holds for us today. On this level The Rose is truly fascinating. I am an avid supporter of seeing good historical pieces presented by Hollywood. When Hollywood does do them these days they are usually really good. I think they are important and that there should be more of them. If you think the same as me then be assured this one won't let you down.

Name Of The Rose

I really enjoyed this series from start to finish, everything was in place from a great score, fine acting and a tight script. The thing is we all remember the fabulous film version and so in many way we just didn't need another version.

7/10

So little is even redeemable in this version. The original story is almost completely lost beneath invented storylines and background stories, overacting, invented characters and worst of all mediocre acting from actors who should be much better.