Who else knows Name of the Rose? It's so tricky to give synopses which conveys both the story and why something is worth reading. An nth-century abbey specialises in scholarship, hosting the best library in Christendom, but doesn't seem to make the monks any more serene, there's eventually tragic scholarly and intellectual politics. I generally say Umberto Eco:Neal Stephenson::Neal Stephenson:Dan Brown.
The adaption is very good. Apart from anything else, when you have thirty men only in brown, black and black-and-white robes it's sufficient challenge to keep them all separate, but all the actors' faces are really distinctive and expressive. The main characters are played by Sean Connery and a very young Christian Slater. But all fit the roles very well, sometimes not how I'd imagined them, but fit instantly.
It really captures the feel of the book. Which is really difficult, the book sets the mood with pages of introspection.
However, while I'm glad I've seen it, I didn't really enjoy it as much. I don't think it could be done better, but I think partly the book is just so long, intricate and difficult (at least to me) it has a sense of depth that a movie can't equal. (There are a few changes to the plot and a lot elided, but I think all the right choices, it keeps the feel if not the same outcomes.)
On the other hand, seeing it makes it the characters seem more real. Less of an author's game to make points and more real monks arguing and dying in the snow.
I can't tell how it comes across to someone who hadn't read the book, though some people have assured me it's well. I think the plot holds together, but I can't be sure. Certainly events being streamlined, the important things being shown on screen, helps me grasp the outline of the book, which I must have read many times before I finally got any kind of idea. (And feel I have further to go.)
The method of murder is referenced in many other places (it's not original to this, but I guess they're derived from it) but it only now occurs to me they may stem from the film rather than the book, where it's more prominent.
The adaption is very good. Apart from anything else, when you have thirty men only in brown, black and black-and-white robes it's sufficient challenge to keep them all separate, but all the actors' faces are really distinctive and expressive. The main characters are played by Sean Connery and a very young Christian Slater. But all fit the roles very well, sometimes not how I'd imagined them, but fit instantly.
It really captures the feel of the book. Which is really difficult, the book sets the mood with pages of introspection.
However, while I'm glad I've seen it, I didn't really enjoy it as much. I don't think it could be done better, but I think partly the book is just so long, intricate and difficult (at least to me) it has a sense of depth that a movie can't equal. (There are a few changes to the plot and a lot elided, but I think all the right choices, it keeps the feel if not the same outcomes.)
On the other hand, seeing it makes it the characters seem more real. Less of an author's game to make points and more real monks arguing and dying in the snow.
I can't tell how it comes across to someone who hadn't read the book, though some people have assured me it's well. I think the plot holds together, but I can't be sure. Certainly events being streamlined, the important things being shown on screen, helps me grasp the outline of the book, which I must have read many times before I finally got any kind of idea. (And feel I have further to go.)
The method of murder is referenced in many other places (it's not original to this, but I guess they're derived from it) but it only now occurs to me they may stem from the film rather than the book, where it's more prominent.