Rosemary's Baby

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.

It was genuine interest that spiked me to sit down to watch this 2014 TV mini-series of the 1968 classic movie. And now that I have seen this TV mini-series I can honestly say that if you have seen the classic movie and enjoyed that, then you probably am not going to be enjoying this 2014 re-invention too much.

Sure, the Paris setting was a nice touch, given the architecture and the catacombs in Paris, but there was a little bit too much political correctness in this TV mini-series (not saying that political correctness is a bad thing here). Why change the lead role to an African-American when it was a Caucasian in the original movie? Story-wise, then this 2014 re-make is the exact same as the original, just with extra fillings to make it span over a longer running time. Was that really necessary? No, not really.

As for the cast, well people were doing great jobs. But the real talents and stars of the TV mini-series were Carole Bouquet (playing Margaux) and Jason Isaacs (playing Roman).

The 2014 TV mini-series is a great introduction for a new audience unfamiliar with the 1968 classic movie. But for us who watched the original, loved and enjoyed it, then the 2014 version is a pale and hollow experience that the world really didn't need.

The running time of the TV mini-series caused the experience to be stretched to the limit, because there was too much unnecessary materials throughout the course, and the show was starting to halt and lose interest at certain points.

A mediocre 5 out of 10 stars for this 2014 re-make version.

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 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.

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...