Rosemary's Baby

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.

If you change a film locations,gender,ethnicity & some of the story format.. You have something new? Not really.

It wasn't horrible but,feel some casting changes would of helped.

Cinematography was average & rather unfortunate,being as mentioned of its film location.

Would I watch it,again? Nope!

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.

Roman Polanski's 1968 original is my all-time favorite horror movie; to surpass this director is an impossible task;but ,curiosity,I can't help it.

Agniezka Holland is Pole ,like her prestigious colleague and she's made interesting works; she can't begin to touch his genius ,but,against all odds ,her miniseries is not as bad as I expected .

Perhaps Holland had in mind a diptych, for the credits claim :based on Ira Levin's novelS "Rosemary's baby " and "son of Rosemary"; it's a blessing she did not carry on with the second book ,for it was as mediocre as the first one was absorbing .

Polanski was faithful to the story but he transcended it with his peerless directing ; Holland's screenplay has undergone lot of changes :first the action takes place in Paris ,where the non-French can visit the Sorbonne and the Catacombes -you can visit this gruesome place, but the guide won't tell you the far-fetched explanations one hears in the movie.

Exit Hutch (replaced by a friend Julie ,and a priest who briefly appears ),Dr Shand , Laura -Louise McBurney ; Terry (replaced by a pregnant woman who jumps out of her window and whose husband reappears later); the Castevet are younger :Roman is a handsome man in his fifties and his wife is no longer old mischievous Minnie (it was probably impossible to match oscar-winning Ruth Gordon) ,but an attractive chic Margaux ; Dr Hill is replaced by Dr Bernard , who has at his disposal a much more modern technology than his American colleague, but in the end ,plays the same role as in the novel. Shady Dr Sapirstein is one of the rare characters whose part is the same as in Ira Levin's book .And ,yes ,Guy is not the actor chasing after any sort of work :he's a professor longing to become a successful writer.

The miniseries is inevitably too long and sometimes drags on ; the new technology (Dr Bernard)could have opened up new horizons for the screenplay ,but it is not fully exploited ; Zoe Saldana is an OK Rosemary but her husband 's playing leaves a lot to be desired : Patrick J.Adams is bland , harmless and not efficient at all : nothing of the great John Cassavetes 'ambiguity .Both Jason Isaacs and French Carole Bouquet are convincing ;the latter is perhaps the best of the lot ,exuding a scent of a poisoned flower .

When Holland tries to imitate her predecessor (the nightmare, the final scene) it's stating the obvious to write she does not rise to the occasion ; adding gore , horrible scenes and a colossal mistake in the final scenes do not help .

The 1968 movie was a masterpiece ;the miniseries is just OK, watchable if you are curious.