Le bébé de Rosemary

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.

I found the movie not as bad as people are trying to say it is. I think people are saying it's bad because they didn't make it exactly like the first film in every single detail or because they expected it to have certain things that it did not. I believe the point of a remake is to make your own version of something, not copy the first film so we all know what'll happen every time. In my opinion, this film did a good job at keeping the main parts of the first film, which is all any remake should do. Outside of the main parts, little things were changed, such as different settings and different groups of people, which original serious fans threw a fit about.

Zoe is a beautiful and talented actress and I don't think it was wrong for her to play Rosemary in the film. Zoe is one of Hollywood's new hits, starring in lots of new film, she was perfect for just advertising the movie alone.

If you're a serious fan, like you know every single detail from the book and/or the first movie, this film might not be for you in all honesty. If you want to see a modernized version of a film you saw in the past with new famous faces, give this a watch. If you don't know anything about Rosemary's Baby, you should definitely give this a watch. I also thought it was creative how they turned the movie into two parts, I hadn't seen that done yet, but that may just be myself.

When you remake a classic, the goal should be to blow your audience away not barely make a ripple. As one of many viewers of the original, I was pretty open minded, an opportunity to see one of my favorite horror novels brought to the screen again and looking forward to seeing how they could improve on perfection (okay, maybe I wasn't so open minded).

Hats off to the locale. A great choice Paris, urbane and dark, however the apartment building was nowhere near as creepy as The Dakota. The acting was believable with a good looking cast and at first held a lot of promise. Instead of eccentric senior folks, they are replaced by well dressed, well connected and attractive AARP members.

One of my main criticisms of this version is the excessive use of blood and guts. I recently read an interview with Zoe Saldana, who plays Rosemary Woodhouse and she said for today's audience they needed to make it bloody. Really? Gratuitous violence just like gratuitous sex feels false and detracts. How wonderful that the original didn't rely on jump scares(not found here but such a staple in modern horror) and horrific images. Nothing is more scary than the imagination.

Is this the worst remake ever? No, not by any means. It was entertaining though a bit long. The main difference between this and the original is that in the original I didn't want it to end; in this version I couldn't wait for it to end.

I think Agnieszka Holland did an interesting job on directing a film with unavoidable comparison to the Polanski film of the same name. Cinematography by Michel Amathieu is well lit and looks professional. The problem that I have is that such horror film, thriller, and such look like cheap CW television shows when not filmed on film stock. That is my problem, but I just cannot adjust to the look of Gothic story painted on such a canvas.

Otherwise, Zoe Saldana (Rosemary) hands in her usual above board acting job, but I must admit that I never liked Mia Farrows work, I found her to be without depth. So Ms. Saldana did not have to reach far, into her vast acting repertoire, to out act shallow Farrow, nevertheless she gave the part a good shove in the right direction. Patrick J. Adams (Guy), on the other hand, had to compete with John Cassavetes who was amazing in the role. He did not really rise to it, but his part was limited to very few emotions...which I did not feel he really reached, but it did not really distract from the film's plot.

That's it for comparisons to the Polanski flick, other than I live across the street from the Dakota and it will always be the Rosemary's Baby building to me. The building in the film has an equally eerie facade and the inside with its maze of connecting rooms create a sinister set from Ms. Saldana to explore. OK that is enough comparisons!!! It is hard, is it not ? Taking on a classic film and putting it on television makes it impossible not to compare.

As far as subject matter, does it really fit today's sensibilities. Whereas the Polanski film places loose with the supernatural overtones, this film jumps right in to all the trimmings of a full-out horror tale. It is a tragedy where the hero is consumed by the evil it seemed innocent enough to overcome. The hero is not saved by innocence, she is destroyed because of it. The underlining theme of both the book and this film (not so much in Polanski's tale) is betrayal. Rosemary is ultimately betrayed by her new friends, her apartment, her husband and finally herself. She is dammed. Does that make sense in a secular world where religion is greatly deflated ? Maybe not everyone's cup of tea anymore.

Finally, this was produced by Saldana and her family. Perhaps that was too much, in the end, for her to chew.

Derivative; Antiseptic; Atmospheric for the sake of tourist/holiday atmosphere (Paris; exotic reference; stock evil; blocked writer making his bones at prestigious institution of learning... .) Yes, the cat is black. This re-imagining of the original rests evidently upon the presumption that there is something to be gained by introducing characters who have no clear connection with the narrative, in addition to larding the product with scenes of gratuitous incoherency and gore. At one level or another, dream-sequence passages of leaps from windows, ad nauseum, detract essentially from the inner core of cinematic verity: We know we are heading down. Otherwise, see the Original. Polanski. Weird. Brilliant. Horrific.