Rate The Last Film You Watched

Jul 29, 2012
18,788
3,997
Belfast, Ireland
The Name of the Rose (1986)
[IMG]


So I got round to this last night, one I’d been meaning to watch for a while largely because of the Medieval setting. Unfortunately it was pretty much meh for the most part. Early on it certainly had its moments where I was actually becoming quite invested in the mystery and the attempts of our protagonists - William of Baskerville and his young apprentice Adso of Melk - to solve it. It’s an interesting conceit, even if it doesn’t amount to much more than Sherlock Holmes in a Medieval abbey. I’ll say that Connery is actually pretty damn excellent in the role of a rogue Fransiscan. Though I’ll also say that Christian Slater is absolutely dreadful as his young novice Adso, I was in a constant state of cringe watching him to be honest.

For me those early moments where I was invested in the mystery totally dissipated as the film went on as the whodunnit gradually shifts to a whydunnit. The problem wasn’t so much that I didn’t care about the whydunnit, but rather that I found it to be pretty ridiculous. I have heard some praise the film for its authentic medieval atmosphere. I did not find that at all. The film ultimately just falls back on boring cliches and stereotypes about the Medieval period. The peasants are unwashed neanderthals, the church is a collection of evil, greedy men, and the other monks are dour joyless zealots in stark contrast to the positively modern, enlightened figure of Connery’s William of Baskerville (hang ups about women aside). It’s not that this stuff has no basis at all in reality - the Benedectine conception of monastic life was very different from that Fransciscan and likewise the debates shown have their basis in real controversies. However, in the film there is zero nuance. Characters and their motivations are portrayed in a basically cartoonish fashion and for me it was simply boring by the end.

I haven’t read the book, so not sure how faithfully it follows those portrayals but I imagine it contains more of intellectual interest to carry things along. The film only has the mystery to be solved and in the end it simply wasn’t that engaging. Not dreadful, but nothing to write home about either.
 
Reactions: NSFW

Sittin Sonny

The Antifa Shuffle
Jun 10, 2013
6,256
5,511
The Name of the Rose (1986)
[IMG]


So I got round to this last night, one I’d been meaning to watch for a while largely because of the Medieval setting. Unfortunately it was pretty much meh for the most part. Early on it certainly had its moments where I was actually becoming quite invested in the mystery and the attempts of our protagonists - William of Baskerville and his young apprentice Adso of Melk - to solve it. It’s an interesting conceit, even if it doesn’t amount to much more than Sherlock Holmes in a Medieval abbey. I’ll say that Connery is actually pretty damn excellent in the role of a rogue Fransiscan. Though I’ll also say that Christian Slater is absolutely dreadful as his young novice Adso, I was in a constant state of cringe watching him to be honest.

For me those early moments where I was invested in the mystery totally dissipated as the film went on as the whodunnit gradually shifts to a whydunnit. The problem wasn’t so much that I didn’t care about the whydunnit, but rather that I found it to be pretty ridiculous. I have heard some praise the film for its authentic medieval atmosphere. I did not find that at all. The film ultimately just falls back on boring cliches and stereotypes about the Medieval period. The peasants are unwashed neanderthals, the church is a collection of evil, greedy men, and the other monks are dour joyless zealots in stark contrast to the positively modern, enlightened figure of Connery’s William of Baskerville (hang ups about women aside). It’s not that this stuff has no basis at all in reality - the Benedectine conception of monastic life was very different from that Fransciscan and likewise the debates shown have their basis in real controversies. However, in the film there is zero nuance. Characters and their motivations are portrayed in a basically cartoonish fashion and for me it was simply boring by the end.

I haven’t read the book, so not sure how faithfully it follows those portrayals but I imagine it contains more of intellectual interest to carry things along. The film only has the mystery to be solved and in the end it simply wasn’t that engaging. Not dreadful, but nothing to write home about either.

Well... I liked it. :bart
 
Reactions: Matty lll

NSFW

Freedom Fighter
May 14, 2013
23,796
12,589
Castle Duckula.
The Name of the Rose (1986)
[IMG]


So I got round to this last night, one I’d been meaning to watch for a while largely because of the Medieval setting. Unfortunately it was pretty much meh for the most part. Early on it certainly had its moments where I was actually becoming quite invested in the mystery and the attempts of our protagonists - William of Baskerville and his young apprentice Adso of Melk - to solve it. It’s an interesting conceit, even if it doesn’t amount to much more than Sherlock Holmes in a Medieval abbey. I’ll say that Connery is actually pretty damn excellent in the role of a rogue Fransiscan. Though I’ll also say that Christian Slater is absolutely dreadful as his young novice Adso, I was in a constant state of cringe watching him to be honest.

For me those early moments where I was invested in the mystery totally dissipated as the film went on as the whodunnit gradually shifts to a whydunnit. The problem wasn’t so much that I didn’t care about the whydunnit, but rather that I found it to be pretty ridiculous. I have heard some praise the film for its authentic medieval atmosphere. I did not find that at all. The film ultimately just falls back on boring cliches and stereotypes about the Medieval period. The peasants are unwashed neanderthals, the church is a collection of evil, greedy men, and the other monks are dour joyless zealots in stark contrast to the positively modern, enlightened figure of Connery’s William of Baskerville (hang ups about women aside). It’s not that this stuff has no basis at all in reality - the Benedectine conception of monastic life was very different from that Fransciscan and likewise the debates shown have their basis in real controversies. However, in the film there is zero nuance. Characters and their motivations are portrayed in a basically cartoonish fashion and for me it was simply boring by the end.

I haven’t read the book, so not sure how faithfully it follows those portrayals but I imagine it contains more of intellectual interest to carry things along. The film only has the mystery to be solved and in the end it simply wasn’t that engaging. Not dreadful, but nothing to write home about either.
I didn't like the TV adaptation either.
 

AntG

Scaredy Bat
Nov 16, 2012
3,743
2,912
Lancashire
Gravity

George Clooney and Sandra Bullock play a spaceman and a spacemanwoman who are trapped in space when their shuttle and crew are destroyed by a debris storm.

It was alright actually.
 
Jul 6, 2019
6,948
7,285
The Name of the Rose (1986)
[IMG]


So I got round to this last night, one I’d been meaning to watch for a while largely because of the Medieval setting. Unfortunately it was pretty much meh for the most part. Early on it certainly had its moments where I was actually becoming quite invested in the mystery and the attempts of our protagonists - William of Baskerville and his young apprentice Adso of Melk - to solve it. It’s an interesting conceit, even if it doesn’t amount to much more than Sherlock Holmes in a Medieval abbey. I’ll say that Connery is actually pretty damn excellent in the role of a rogue Fransiscan. Though I’ll also say that Christian Slater is absolutely dreadful as his young novice Adso, I was in a constant state of cringe watching him to be honest.

For me those early moments where I was invested in the mystery totally dissipated as the film went on as the whodunnit gradually shifts to a whydunnit. The problem wasn’t so much that I didn’t care about the whydunnit, but rather that I found it to be pretty ridiculous. I have heard some praise the film for its authentic medieval atmosphere. I did not find that at all. The film ultimately just falls back on boring cliches and stereotypes about the Medieval period. The peasants are unwashed neanderthals, the church is a collection of evil, greedy men, and the other monks are dour joyless zealots in stark contrast to the positively modern, enlightened figure of Connery’s William of Baskerville (hang ups about women aside). It’s not that this stuff has no basis at all in reality - the Benedectine conception of monastic life was very different from that Fransciscan and likewise the debates shown have their basis in real controversies. However, in the film there is zero nuance. Characters and their motivations are portrayed in a basically cartoonish fashion and for me it was simply boring by the end.

I haven’t read the book, so not sure how faithfully it follows those portrayals but I imagine it contains more of intellectual interest to carry things along. The film only has the mystery to be solved and in the end it simply wasn’t that engaging. Not dreadful, but nothing to write home about either.
I loved it as a child. I was a big slater fan in general. Haven't watched it since.
 
Reactions: Sittin Sonny

BigBone

Sugalowda!
Jun 13, 2012
12,998
2,890
Tycho Station
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

15362

This classic political satire looks stunning in 4K restoration and is every bit as fresh, hilarious, scary and entertaining as it was some 50 yrs back. Kubrick's attention to detail in locations and military jargon, Sterling Hayden's worries about precious bodily fluids, George C. Scott's sheer joy upon hearing of the necessity of poligamy, the good boys aboard the B-52 bomber and of course Peter Sellers in the titular role among two others just delivers one funny moment, historical movie quote and sharp irony on political reality after another. Dr. Strangelove never lost its relevance, matter of fact: with Orange Man opening a new Cold War with China and plenty of apocalyptic shit show going on on climate, overpopulation, virus and economic side, we are on the cusp of mutually assured destruction after all, ready to set the doomsday device on ourselves. Well, fuck. A 10/10 Bone classic somehow improves upon itself via this masterful 4K release.
 

kf3

Jul 17, 2012
6,978
3,891
South London
Amazing, I never knew that. I guess that means I hated the film actually.
why would it mean that? might be a great film, i'm never gonna watch it, because i also know the man raped children.

why you watch the art of and perhaps even gave money to a man who raped children, is the actual question i was posing.
 
Jul 29, 2012
18,788
3,997
Belfast, Ireland
why would it mean that?

why you watch the art of and perhaps even gave money to a man who raped children, is the actual question i was posing.
Please explain how I gave money to him? Likewise please explain how viewing his films bears any connection to the vile crimes he committed outside of that. I watch the art because I like Macbeth and it was an apparently excellent film. There are a great many artists across many many mediums accused of awful things.