The Name of the Rose

The Name of the Rose

Starring: Sean Connery, Christian Slater, Ron Pearlman

Year - 1986

MPAA – R

Sex/Nudity – There is one pretty graphic sex scene between a young man and woman. You see all of her and almost all of him, the only thing you don’t see is the actual penetration…if you know what I mean. There are a few references to one monk’s preference for pretty boys, and it is implied that one monk traded sexual favors with another one. I would give the movie 10 out of 10 in sex and nudity just because that scene was so explicit.

Violence/Gore – A man is presumably drowned in a vat of pig’s blood, quite a few people are found dead, presumably murdered. Torture is implied though not seen, and one man’s arm appears to have been broken in torture. One man is hit over the head he falls down dead and a lot of blood pools out of the wound. Two people are burned at the stake but we don’t actually see them burning. I’d say a 7 or 8 out of 10, not so much because of violence, there is very little, but because of the gore.

Profanity – One use of the “B” word, and maybe a religious exclamation or so.

This is a pretty old film, it came out the year I was born, but I really wanted to watch a Sean Connery film and this one seemed interesting. I really enjoyed it. I would give it a 7 0r 8 out of 10, not a fantastic film, but also not a bad job at all. There are some really good elements to the film and no real flaws.
Sean Connery and his apprentice are Franciscan monks visiting a Benedictine monastery. The monastery is under a dark shroud of woe due to mysterious deaths taking place among the monks. Connery uses his astute mind to solve the mystery casting off the idea of the work of the devil for a more logical explanation.



The name of the Rose is a very well done movie. It is Sherlock Holmes in the middle ages. Connery is somewhat of a rebel monk because he is not easily swayed by the zeitgeists of the time. Instead of fearing the presence of evil spirits, which theory the monks of the monastery lean towards, he uses reason and deduction to uncover the mystery behind the deaths. Connery plays his part well, there is almost little bit of Dr. Henry Jones meets James Bond (without the gizmos and gadgets). Slater’s role is narrator and side kick and his performance is adequate. None of the acting is phenomenal but the movie is carried off almost flawlessly.

My only problem with the movie was the end cleaned up a little too neatly and abruptly. It was still a decent end, and I don’t want to give anything away, but it just seemed too easy an ending. But it still worked for the film. I didn’t find any flaws in the writing, and the plot moved quickly so there were no parts that dragged out. Over all this movie was well done and I enjoyed watching it. I wasn’t a big fan of the unneeded sex scene, and it could have been a lot more tastefully done. However the film was suspenseful and seemed fairly accurate to the times.