Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Derrick Gibbons An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

ersinkdotcom There's two ways you can react to a new version of "Rosemary's Baby." The first one is to completely write it off and make the assumption that no one could do a better job of adapting Ira Levin's bestseller than Roma Polanski did in 1968. The other reaction is to take it as a new vision of the book that isn't trying to be a remake of the first movie and enjoy or hate it for what it is according to its own merits.I think the one thing we can all agree on is that if the Satanic Panic- type films of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s are going to be introduced to a whole new generation of viewers, there's no better place to start than with "Rosemary's Baby." After all, it really is where the trend began for mainstream moviegoers.Young Rosemary Woodhouse (Zoe Saldana) and her husband (Patrick J. Adams) move to Paris after he is offered a job there. After a residential fire, the couple are invited to live in a luxurious apartment by landlord's Roman (Jason Isaacs) and Margaux Castevet (Carole Bouquet). Rosemary becomes pregnant and her eccentric neighbors shower her with kindness and devotion. She begins to suspect they're only after one thing following an investigation into the building's mysterious ties to the occult. Rosemary believes the supportive bunch are a coven of witches looking to sacrifice her baby to stay young.There's no doubt in my mind that everyone involved in the new version of "Rosemary's Baby" was dedicated to the project. Zoe Saldana completely embraces her role as the damaged-yet-hopeful Rosemary, who desperately wants to do the right thing for her unborn child. Jason Isaacs and Carole Bouquet are deliciously wicked playing the reserved but extremely persuasive Castevets."Rosemary's Baby" is not rated. However, I would give it a PG-13 rating for adult situations, sensuality, and disturbing images. There's a bit of gore and some sex scenes without nudity.There's no heavy religious message to be found within "Rosemary's Baby." If it teaches you anything, it's that you need to be careful what you're willing to sacrifice for material success and temporary happiness. Although it deals with Satan and his powers, it's not evangelical in any form and doesn't preach at the viewer in regards to their spiritual life.People who have never seen Roman Polanski's "Rosemary's Baby" and haven't read anything about it will no doubt enjoy this updated version more than those already exposed to the classic tale. I found it to be entertaining and thrilling at times. Was it as good as Polanski's 1968 version? I wouldn't say so. Did it seem to dig a little deeper and expand on the concept more than the original? Yes, considering it was a two-part movie and had around 34 minutes more to flesh things out.

ColeBanks As a huge fan of Ira Levin's novel and Roman Polanski's "Rosemary's Baby", I will admit this mini- series was better than I expected, but that does not mean I thought it was good. The acting overall was pretty decent, except for Zoe Saldana, who did a very impressive job with her role as Rosemary. I do not think I can say she was better than Mia Farrow, but she did a great job overall. I was really impressed with the cinematography and the camera work throughout the film. The environments were always pretty well lit and the Paris setting looked absolutely beautiful. Most of the credit here goes to the director Agnieszka Holland. Unfortunately a good director does not mean a good script. The teleplay was co-written by Scott Abbot, someone relatively new in show business, and James Wong. James Wong is the director behind one of the worst movies of all time "Dragonball: Evolution", and the writer of the torture porn franchise "Final Destination". Its dumb script brings down the movie, but just being a remake really brings it down. "Rosemary's Baby" is a story that was completely ahead of its time. It is however far behind our time. I'm not saying it is not a good movie anymore; it is still an amazing movie. The movie came out way before I was born and it is still one of my favorites, but the story has been ripped off so many times, to modern viewers it may seem too familiar to them. Just a few months ago a movie about a satanic pregnancy came out called "Devil's Due". Another came out just yesterday called "Delivery: The Beast Within". And because the original "Rosemary's Baby" had such a shocking ending, there is no excitement left for a remake. There is also nothing to add to the story to change because Roman Polanski's masterpiece was extremely loyal to Ira Levin's novel. The only difference between the two is Rosemary's dream sequence. Both are portrayed very differently but in the end the same thing happens. The rest of the movie is nearly identical to the book. There are a few minor differences here and there, but no major changes were made that affected the overall story. Now that I have talked about why it shouldn't have been remade, I need to talk about the mistakes in the remake itself. The mini-series does not understand how to be subtle. Subtlety is what made the original so good. To some it may be slow but it is necessarily slow. The audience is given subtle hints that tell them about the Castevets' true nature. These hints leave you wondering, but in the end could just be random coincidences. In the mini-series it tells you distinctly that the Castevets worship Satan and want Rosemary's baby. It even tells you the twist that even Rosemary's husband was a part of it as a lazy attempt of making Guy Woodhouse's character more "sympathetic". When a character dies it not only shows them dying but it makes it obvious that their death was caused by the Castevets. And then there's moronic stuff like the Castevets giving Rosemary a black cat, Roman always wearing black and an ear-piercing, and Rosemary seeing some random "creepy" looking guy who is supposed to be Satan (This list could go on). This kind of stuff is added because James Wong thinks you are too dumb to know that the Castevets worship Satan. In the end, is the script really to blame? Not entirely. The teleplay is really boring and treats you like you're stupid, but the studio could have picked a worse writer. Ira Levin himself could have written the teleplay and this would still be a bad mini-series. I feel like Agnieszka Holland tried her best and I cannot imagine how bad it would be if someone like James Wong was chosen to direct it. The point I am trying to make is that this should not have been remade, but unfortunately greedy entertainment studios want money.

john_p40 Out of respect for Ira Levin's novel and Roman Polanski's film, my wife and I watched this two-part miniseries. On the positive side, I actually liked the Paris setting. (The 1967 novel and '68 film version were set in Manhattan). Because of its medieval history, Paris does seem like it would be more accessible for demonic activity. After that, forget it. We know Polanski is alleged to have been a pedophile, but he certainly knew how to plumb the dark corners of human endeavors in his films and his version of this story is far superior. And then there's the casting. Zoe Saldana is a very good actress - but she's no Mia Farrow. Farrow's frail, waif-like appearance perfectly suited a woman with a satanic pregnancy. And why was it necessary to cast an African-American actress? The director seems to be self-consciously reminding viewers that since Obama is president, the protagonist needs to have her race changed. The actor playing Guy, Rosemary's husband, is dull and vapid. However, Carole Bouquet, playing next door neighbor Margaux, is wonderful - sexy and seductive. Final word: Skip this version. Read the novel and watch the original film.

spencergrande6 Remaking one of the great films (not just horror) of all time is not a very good idea, and almost certainly was going to be met with resistance and negative feedback and groans of lack of imagination nowadays. But "Rosemary's Baby" does present some interest as a modern updated take on the original 60's set story.How does the story and Rosemary's actions change in the modern world? What with the internet and cell phones and instant information, and maybe most importantly, a strong independent "modern" woman. The casting of Zoe Saldana as Rosemary, famous for her tough as nails action heroines she's been known to play, would seem to suggest this.None of this means anything however. The movie does open with Rosemary chasing down a burglar, resulting in a cop calling her brave and reckless, suggesting he needs more cops like her. Yet this leads nowhere. Never again does Rosemary do anything rash or without someone's permission. If the movie were to suggest that her independence had been taken from her, then yes maybe that would be interesting but that's not what's here.Instead we get a basic retread, expanded upon here and with some added gore there, with a fresh city that really amounts to nothing other than some French accents. Rosemary doesn't every really feel out of place here, except one time near the beginning when she suggest that she can't stay at a party because everyone is speaking French. But then everyone speaks English and that's that. Everything is plot contrivance without any new raison d'etre (I had to). Much like the recent wasted attempt at a "Carrie" remake...