Rosemary's Baby

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.

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...

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.

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.