Rosemary's Baby (2014) User Reviews

A Little Better Than OK (but not by much)

[ChaCha44 · 5/10 · 18 May 2014]

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.

A Wasted Opportunity

[spencergrande6 · 6/10 · 16 May 2014]

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...

Not an improvement but I like the Paris location

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 16 May 2014]

After suffering a miscarriage, Rosemary (Zoe Saldana) and Guy Woodhouse (Patrick J. Adams) move to Paris. They have one friend there, Julie (Christina Cole). Guy is a struggling writer who is completely blocked. Soon they befriend Margaux (Carole Bouquet) and Roman Castevet (Jason Isaacs). They take in the couple to their beautiful exclusive apartment building.

I love the Paris location but this is an unnecessary remake. The running time is way too long. The 1968 original is already long. I can accept that since the movie was so well made and also that's the style of that era. This one is even longer, and it's not better for it.

The cast is just as impressive as the original. Zoe Saldana doesn't have the fragility of Mia Farrow but she does frantic very well. I like Patrick Adams as the husband more than John Cassavetes. He's a puppy-face pretty boy. The switch for his character is harsher and more heart breaking. Jason Isaacs is a compelling villain and it's nice to see french beauty Carole Bouquet again. Although I miss Ruth Gordon. There is something about an old creepy witch. It matches.

The last group scene is also not an improvement. The old scene from the original is claustrophobic. It used to be interior and closed off. It is creepier, scarier, and ultimately much more effective. Like many changes from the original, it is neither effective nor an improvement.

The changes ruin the story

[phd_travel · 1/10 · 30 May 2014]

I wanted to give this a chance since I loved the original Roman Polanski movie so much. And I was open minded to a change in setting from New York to Paris - after all it's no point making a shot for shot remake of a perfect movie. But comparing this with the original this version is a travesty. There are so many changes that aren't for the better, they are for the worse.

The casting is bad. Zoe Saldana doesn't have the angelic wide eyed innocence of Mia Farrow. Jason Isaacs as Roman Castavets looks too obviously sinister from the get go, he is just too obvious. Patrick J Adams tries but isn't shifty enough. Carole Bouquet is the best of the lot she is sophisticatedly sinister but without the motherly benign façade that Ruth Gordon had her character doesn't work either.

The changes in the story were disastrous. Revealing Guy's collusion with the Castavets and the real nature of the Castavets so early on takes away all the tension that was in the original. The dialog isn't as good especially when they departed from the original. It lacks subtlety. Having such gory ends for the victims doesn't take it into the 21st Century - rather it spoils the realistic base which made the original so much more chilling. In the original going blind was enough. Didn't have to have a throat slashing thing. The climax at the end when she finds her baby just falls flat especially where she wanted to kill it.

It's a painful watch for fans of the original. If you look on it as a "Rosemary's Baby 2 - Paris" maybe you can bear it. Just be prepared the horror is in how bad the movie is compared to the original.

Entertaining and thrilling at times - not as good as the original

[ersinkdotcom · 7/10 · 29 August 2014]

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.

See the original

[swburgess1957-62-966013 · 3/10 · 21 August 2014]

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.

Remake of Polanski thriller turned to horror TV show

[Beginthebeguine · 24 August 2014]

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.

Not that bad, worth a watch.

[insulationed · 7/10 · 19 May 2014]

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.

Made for Money and does not Understand Subtlety

[ColeBanks · 3/10 · 1 June 2014]

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.

Not great but not inherently terrible either...

[girlcalledned · 6/10 · 3 October 2021]

While obviously nowhere near as good as the original film, this effort does have some merit. Zoe Saldana is convincing as Rosemary, and the cinematography and sets/locations beautifully depict the gorgeous Paris setting. I appreciate that they didn't try to do a shot for shot remake, and some of the changes that were made work quite well. Changing the location from New York to Paris adds to the confusion and isolation that Rosemary experiences, as she's trapped in a country where she doesn't speak the language thus making her even more dependent on the assistance of the Castavets.

Because the film opens with Rosemary having a miscarriage, it also adds another layer to her constant anxiety regarding her eventual pregnancy and Guy's habit of distancing himself from her.

No one could ever hold a flame to the original film's Castavets' (Ruth Gordon's performance alone is truly unmatchable) so I appreciate that they didn't try to recreate the original performances or characterisation here. Rather than being eccentric older, and somewhat nosy neighbours, they are now sexy, affluent and extremely generous peers.

It may be because most people are already generally familiar with the original film and/or book (thus not being as subtle about everyone's motivations) and one of the main differences between the adaptations is that this one shows a lot more of the things that were alluded to or only partly shown in the original. For example, one of the Castavets' victims experiences a Final Destination fate in all its gory glory. There's a lot more blood and gore in general and I imagine would turn off a lot of people who loved the original's gradual tension and dreamlike sequences that are used to put the viewer on edge.

In general it's a competently made, but unnecessary remake. It's not really saying anything new, but there were enough changes and additions that it justifies it's existence to some degree.

Whatever Happened to Rosemary's Baby, Jane?

[bushtony · 1/10 · 20 May 2014]

ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968)

Polanski's satanic chiller delivers a masterclass in creeping paranoia and growing unease. It pulls off that elusive achievement, the one whereby most of the action takes place in daylight hours in contemporary New York yet still managing to be eerie and spine tingling. The director knows his Hitchcock well and exploits accordingly whilst imposing his own singular stamp of identity throughout. The integration of bizarre arcane dream sequences and surreal events with a wholly modern environment helps form the spiritual core of this truly satisfying urban horror film. Technically and emotionally, it's a winner, and the years have done little to diminish its power.

As in REPULSION (1965) before it and THE TENANT (1976) after it, the apartment (block) setting is as much a character as anything or anyone else. Across this concrete canvas, deftly, and in common with those other two films, ROSEMARY'S BABY manipulates audience sensibilities through recurrent interchanging beliefs – from this is really happening, to this is all in her mind, to this is really happening, to this is all in her mind, and so on. The ending is suitably creepy and haunting and will stay with you.

So, it's cool, stylish, thrilling, scary, suspenseful – good stuff. I haven't seen it for a couple of years, but intend to revisit soon.

Why bring it up?

Ah, well, because I just sat through...

ROSEMARY'S BABY (2014)...a 240 minute TV Mini-Series in two parts.

And this is a diabolical travesty. For the most part, it seems to be intended as a showcase for the dubious acting talents of Zoe Saldana. Ms Saldana takes the central role of Rosemary. She also produces the show along with two of her family.

In all honesty, Mia Farrow, who featured in the original, irritates me as an actress in ways that cause me to actively avoid films in which she appears. Apart from ROSEMARY'S BABY, that is, in which her cutesy, whiney, elfin, borderline-anorexic, drippy, fragile, neurotic flower-child persona fits the role and the film and the time to absolute perfection. In anything else, I have to avert my eyes, but in RB she's the ideal choice.

Zoe Saldana is very pretty to look at. Outside of that, she irritates me here even more than Farrow in any film that isn't RB . Every other sentence she speaks is punctuated by a nervous and incongruous giggle that becomes really annoying after the first ten times it manifests. And it never stops. Just when you think it's gone, it pops up again. It's the most unnerving and affecting thing about this whole venture. I don't know how much creative control the girl had, but someone should have at least advised her to stop with the giggling every other line as it doesn't effectively represent dramatic punctuation. Maybe they did. Maybe they got fired for it. Lucky them.

RB 2014 is one of the most sterile pieces of work I've seen for a long time. It's a resolutely flat, monotone one chord visual drone that is filmed without style, panache, flair or meaning. The script is mundane, the performances are mediocre and there is very little by way of tension or suspense. Actually, that's an exaggeration. There's nothing by way of tension or suspense.

The original didn't really need overt special effects to make a point or illustrate anything. This version uses them sporadically – computerised hallucinations, flies, blood, gore, viscera, fire, scalded flesh, etc. It's all amateurish stuff, half-heartedly rendered, and fails to add any life or interest. Worse still, the trajectory of the fates of most of the characters is signposted in the most obvious ways.

The one bright spot was seeing Carole Bouquet in a prominent role. She looks a little faded around the edges these days, but remains something of a vision of stylish beauty.

Some might wonder why I watched it. Why I stuck with it until the bitter end – which, by the way, turned out to be a jaw-droppingly mindless conclusion consisting of a shot of a portly baby in a pram with luminous blue contact lenses blazing like lasers in place of his eyeballs. And this is scary and disturbing how, exactly? As opposed to laughable?

Recently I have been watching HANNIBAL and FARGO and enjoying them. Good quality stimulating and intriguing US TV. HANNIBAL especially pushes the envelope in tone, style and content, with humour so black, serrated and malevolent it almost leaves bite marks. I had an idea that RB might be up to the same standard. Got that wrong.

Stayed till the end because I'm a stickler. And an optimist. Didn't get any better. More fool me, perhaps.

Rosemary's Baby Mini Series (1st Half) Review

[saleemfrazer · 8/10 · 14 May 2014]

-When I first saw the promos for the Rosemary's Baby mini-series, I was interested in the direction that they would take it as well as amazed by how great it looked. Never had I imagined that it would look this beautiful. The scenery of Paris felt like I was watching a Travel Channel special about all the spectacular imagery that Paris conveys in it's artistic landscapes. I could never take my eyes off of the screen whenever a day time sequence was shown. I have never been to Paris, but I can imagine that they captured it's beauty perfectly. Not only do we get a great setting to drool over, but the visuals of the more horrific scenes are interesting to say the least and beautifully shot. That's another thing about this series is it's cinematography. It is eye-gasmic for lack of a better term when watching these scenes take place.

-One of the most important things about a series is it's characters and plot. After all, that is what you came for in the first place. Why should I be excited every week to see these characters engage in a story for hours. In this case, I can easily use one word to describe why anyone should be interested in watching this show: "curiosity". Whether you're familiar with the source material, watched the classic original film, or read online the basics of the story, there is a great sense of curiosity and intrigue where the charters are concerned. The main cast (Rosemary and Guy) are great characters on their own in terms of establishing an every day average couple finding themselves in the world. It's the supporting characters that take you in and challenge your sense of mystery and wonder. Yes, there are many times where my knowledge of the original film takes over and plots it out for me with some of the characters, but it never takes away from my thoughts on wondering what's to come. That's a sentiment to the brilliance in the writing. Everyone seems to be hiding something and even if they're hiding it in plain sight and you recognize it with ease, it's still brilliantly handled.

-Rosemary is played very well and may I say refreshingly by Zoe Saldana. It's great to see characters adapted differently over the years and I had no problems at all with Zoe in the role. I knew she was a high caliber actor and it showed in this first episode. As for the rest of the cast, Guy is played by Patrick J. Adams (who some people might know from "Suits") and he does do a great enough job in playing the struggling writer trying to find success. It's the supporting cast that really puts the horror and mystery elements up front with Carole Bouquet and Jason Isaacs who brilliantly plays the mysterious couple helping Rosemary and Guy. There are other great performances (thought not a lot is seen in the first episode of them to really spotlight) by Olivier Rabourdin as the commissioner and Christina Cole as Julie. I especially liked the commissioner character as I felt he was one of the rare situations where the police commissioner didn't feel like a total waste of time and actually added something to the story.

So being somewhat of a fan of the original film (I never seen it in it's entirety to fully appreciate it yet), I couldn't help but think that the iconic "This isn't a dream" moment could've been better handled. It's fine what they did here and probably worked for the story perfectly in the way the writers planned, but I feel like visually the scene in the original drew me in a lot more and added the horrifying element of the situation a lot better. In the original, you couldn't fully see what was happening as everything was cloudy for the most part. That was genius as we the audience was somewhat experiencing what Rosemary was at the moment on a hazy visual sense. So when the terrifying imagery of claws and monstrous eyes pop up randomly, we can relate to her in that "what the hell is going" type of way. When she states that she's not dreaming and that what she's experiencing is in fact real, it makes it a lot of more scary. As for this version, not a lot is left to the imagination as they show quite a lot removing the nightmarish element to a degree. Another thing that I didn't really care for was the character of the robber constantly stealing someone's purse only to be revealed to be the man in the photo that Rosemary found in their apartment. I like the mystery element behind it, but it felt a little out of place. I think this will be fully explained and given the closure needed in the second half, but for now I can't say I'm fully on board with this side plot.

I think as a whole, Rosemary's Baby is down right gorgeous to look at and it has a lot to offer in the mystery and suspense department. Aside from a couple things that I wish were done a little differently, the series has started on a good foot in it's first half. Let's just hope that the conclusion is just as great if not better than the beginning. There's a lot that can go right as well as wrong at this point. As an optimistic viewer, I stray towards the positive path.

Look what happened to Rosemary's baby.

[ulicknormanowen · 6/10 · 5 January 2021]

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.

Nowhere near the original 1968 version...

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 9 August 2014]

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.

Zoe versus Babe

[wes-connors · 4/10 · 16 May 2014]

In Paris, an attractive pregnant woman jumps out of her apartment window, and splatters her bloody body on the sidewalk. Next, also attractive American ballet dancer Zoe Saldana (as Rosemary "Ro" Woodhouse) suffers a miscarriage. She and her struggling writer husband Patrick J. Adams (as Guy Woodhouse) will eventually be "connected" to the couple in the opening scene. They move to Paris, where Mr. Adams gets a professorial job. An unholy combination of providence and happenstance arranges for Saldana to have her purse snatched, which leads to a meeting with eerie Carole Bouquet (as Margaux) and her weird husband Jason Isaacs (as Roman Castevet). The wealthy couple decides to set the younger couple up as parents to a new version of "Rosemary's Baby" (1968)...

Many of the changes are plausible and interesting, but they add nothing and bring along a new set of problems. For example, introducing a parallel couple works, but it does make the villains seem less powerful and mysterious. The biggest strength is the expanding of the character played by Mr. Adams, but we jump from him being suspicious (like when he encounters his parallel) to participating wholeheartedly (we guess, from the ending of part one). One of the oddest additions is how Saldana, director Agnieszka Holland and filmmakers give the relationship between "Rosemary" and her attractive sponsor a Lesbian vibe. They kiss several times and Ms. Bouquet even gets to cure a headache by sensuously stroking Saldana's chest...

The second half of NBC's two-part TV Movie re-make of writer Ira Levin's classic novel, which was originally directed by Roman Polanski and starred Mia Farrow, covers the "troubled" pregnancy of Rosemary. The interesting revisions introduced in the first half become increasingly uninteresting. The hint of a Lesbian romance between Ro and her sponsor is cast to the wind. Instead, the character seems to go for Guy. Some of the story becomes (unintentionally) laughable, such as the scene where Ms. Saldana chows down on the guts of a chicken. The cat "No-Name" is a real scene stealer. Viewed in a singular sitting – minus many commercials – the film starts out intriguing and drags down as the revisions become predictable. Filmmakers might have been wise to consider an abortion.

**** Rosemary's Baby (5/11/14, 5/15/14) Agnieszka Holland ~ Zoe Saldana, Patrick J. Adams, Carole Bouquet, Jason Isaacs

There is little point in watching this remake, go see the original.

[Amari-Sali · 14 September 2014]

A part of me has such mixed feelings about all these remakes of various classic movies that now have Black starring characters. Not because I am against seeing diversity, but because I'd rather see money put into original media than rehashes of old media. Especially when, in films like Rosemary's Baby, all that seems to change is the skin tone. There is no cultural adaptation, or even a recognition that something has changed in comparison to the original, it is just a darker face which once was played by a white person. For more on the film, look below.

Characters & Story

If you've seen the original, not much has changed structure wise. A young woman and her husband find themselves moving into a building with strange owners; the wife is unemployed, but not without things to do; and as her husband finds himself rising both economically and socially, she finds him changing in ways which makes him not seem like the man she fell in love with. And while, at first, she has a decent relationship with her neighbors, her landlords in this film, as time wears on they become odder and odder, and while she slightly questions things, she never pursues running away from the situation fully. This is despite multiple warnings, horrible nightmares, and coincidental murders which would be red flags for normal people. But with things going well, until nearly the end, there is the question of how ignorant is Rosemary and why was this film remade?

Praise

A part of me feels like Zoe Saldana should be applauded for becoming the new Halle Berry. Someone who looks "exotic," has the ability to come off vulnerable or strong, and can bring that to any role. Something which helps ease the boredom which comes with watching Rosemary's Baby, especially if you've seen the original.

Criticism

However, like with the many remakes that decide to put a physical racial spin on things, you are sort of left wondering what was the point? For while the Whitney Houston and Brandy starring Cinderella, Dorothy Dandrige in Carmen Jones, and maybe this year's Annie maybe an exception, generally it just seems like the money put into these remakes could have gone to better places. Take for example: rather than do a remake of a well-known movie, and use the name of the movie and a few recognizable actors as the basis of why people should watch, why not make something original or inspired? What was really keeping Rosemary's Baby from taking place in Louisiana and adapting things to which perhaps Hollywood's perception of Voodoo could have been used in lieu of Satanism? I mean, while there are some remakes which many have fallen in love with, and would argue are on par, or better, than the original, when movies are simply new faces in old roles; a modern retelling; or even race swaps which either don't seem culturally influenced, or are done for some shallow type of diversity, it makes me wonder who is the person so willing to throw money away on media like this?

Overall: Skip It

As said in the overview, just watch the original. For while Saldana certainly isn't horrible as Rosemary, at the same time you can see she is more so channeling Mia Farrow than making this her role and trying to make you feel any of this is original. I guess, like the Psycho remake of the 90s, this film wanted to cash in on a known brand with new actors. Something which it doesn't succeed in doing in any sense since the film tries to change things to create some sense of originality, but in the end it feels like no one really wanted to put their own spin on things and only changed things just enough so no one could say this was a modernized shot for shot remake to add onto its deserved criticism.

OK adaptation, but why...?

[drjeaf · 6/10 · 4 February 2021]

This is a perfectly passable adaptation. Acting, set-pieces, locations, etc all fine, but why...? It's considerably less of a work than Polanski's hugely accomplished masterpiece, and adds nothing new beyond a bit more of a backstory on the creepy neighbours.

Terrible re-make just broke my heart

[rosemarynae · 1/10 · 20 May 2014]

I was excited about this mini-series and I really wanted to love the show, but there were so many inconsistencies that make the book and the movie that are just not in the series. Guy is a writer and not an actor. Where is the claim to fame and fortune with him as a writer and English teacher. Tragic..just tragic. The Castovitz appeal was that they were an older couple, who would have thought two grandma/grandpa figures could ever be satanist? Again tragedy, to find the Castovitz are a modern, rich, french couple, who host fetish parties. Terrible...and completely Hollywood. I'm glad Polanski isn't in the states to witness this sad re-make of the masterpiece he created in the 70's.

Almost as good as the original ))

[filmgale · 6/10 · 19 July 2019]

The top score is not ther but it is 6 from me !! must be seen this you will not be disappointed, this delivers in its strange way that only rosemary's baby can, the movie will become a classic in it one way, almost as good as the original it delivers but it is of course not like the original from 1968

Why remake a classic?

[WaldoLydecker1 · 2/10 · 31 May 2020]

I never understand when anyone(s) want to re-make a successful film, whether as a film or mini-series. Polanski's original film was as brilliant a work as any that has come along in the history of film. Some praise the Paris relocation, but part of the sinister appeal of the original Ira Levin book, as well of the original Polanski film, was the commonplace, ordinary, unexpected origins of the story's evil. Why relocate the setting to Paris? Perhaps Saldana and her relatives who were involved in producing this travesty just wanted a paid, working vacation under the guise of relocating this masterpiece of darkness in the City of Light.

soft version of the movie!

[juliesharp-36299 · 2/10 · 13 March 2021]

I saw this last night on Stan and must admit after seeing the movie with Mia Farrow... The movie is gusty, great acting, storyline on neighbours you are scared of them? The t.v series(two part) i watched it but found it to be nothing... only thing was story line you understood it,but everything else was nothing, acting was poor? Her husband in this t.v series was terrible , lame at times... Would not recommend at all?

From Gothic New York City to Creepy Paris

[politicon2003 · 8/10 · 26 May 2014]

My recommendation to those who have not read the novel or seen the original 1968 film version of Rosemary's Baby is to watch this TV movie first. You will have the advantage over the rest of us in being able to judge the merits of the story and the TV movie solely on their own merits. Next read the novel and when finished borrow or buy a DVD of the 1968 original. Having loved the classic Roman Polanski 1968 version starring Mia Farrow and John Cassavetes I was prepared to be very critical of this remake of Rosemary's Baby as a TV movie. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised. The 1968 cinema version ran for about 90 minutes whereas the two-part TV move is close to three hours. Too often when a producer does a remake and is given double the time of the original to fill the audience finds too much boring material that should have been cut. A case in point is the recent pointless remake for Netflix of 'From Dusk to Dawn' as a TV series. Fortunately this is not the case in the 2014 version of Rosemary's Baby as every minute is significant and adds to story and character development. Therefore the additions are interesting. The original story line of the novel has been retained but many new twists and turn have been successfully added.

Aside from an intelligent and creative further development and partial remodeling of the story the cast's performance is excellent. Gorgeous Zoe Saldana -an Afro-Latina beauty of Santo Domingo roots - plays the part of the young married woman Rosemary Woodhouse. Miss Saldana seems much younger than her actual 36 years and replaces a pallid Mia Farrow (23 at the time but she seemed much older). Saldana is an accomplished actress with faultless diction and an excellent command of the English language. The husband, Guy Woodhouse, was depicted in 1968 as a very evil looking and temperamental Cassavetes (then aged 39) who dominates his wife Rosemary. Guy, a young unsuccessful author suffering from writer's block is played 46 years later by Canadian actor Patrick J. Adams (aged 33) in his first major role as until now he was basically a TV series actor. Patrick plays the role of Guy not as an evil wife-dominating person but as a rather weak character easily led astray but a young man who has qualms when he sees what has been made to happen to others to further his ambition, whereas the Guy Woodhouse in 1968 has no qualms or misgivings at all so long as his ambitions are fulfilled, even at his wife's expense. While the 1968 Guy Woodhouse has no conscience; the young husband in the 2014 version has so many apparent inward doubts than one is almost prepared to accept that he might well chicken out of the evil role imposed on him by the Castevets.

In the 1968 version John Cassavetes was 16 years older than Mia Farrow whereas in 2014Patrick Adams is merely three years younger than Zoe Saldana so there is no apparent age difference. Given the wide age gap of the Woodhouse couple in 1968 and their virtually similar age in 2014 it is understandable that the actors have to be play their role in a different way from the 1968 movie. What was accepted in the 1960s as a dominant older husband lording it over a pretty wane child-like wife is no longer a 'politically-correct' theme in 2014. In 1969 a young Afro-American actress would have be given a role as a housemaid or an ethnic role whereas in 2014 Zoe is shown as a highly articulate intelligent modern young woman whose skin colour is immaterial. In the 2014 movie the racially-mixed but culturally equal Woodhouse couple is deeply in love with each other whereas for most of the 1968 film a loving relationship is patently absent. Most of the rest of the large cast are good French actors probably not well known abroad, but it does not matter.

The evil Satanist Roman Castevet and his wife Margaux (Minnie in 1968) are played by a deceptive too-good-to-be true Jason Isaacs, helped in the role by the actor's slightly Saturnine features and a coldly evil looking Carole Bouquet. The Castevets in 2014 are played as a suave very modern and wealthy Parisian couple in place of the rather seedy and obnoxious Brooklyn–accented Castevets portrayed in 1968. However, the same message is given; the persons who offer you help are not always your friends. It often happens in real life that a very young couple with no family in a strange town form close relationships with much older childless married persons who assume a quasi-parental role over them and are frequently the one that initiate bonding.

I had some reservations of the switch in cities where the play is enacted. In 1968, as in the novel, the setting was a Gothic and creepy building in New York City. I now realise that the City of Light can be just as creepy and Gothic as in 'The Ninth Gate'. Indeed, the location team had no more difficulty in finding a suitable creepy apartment building in Paris for the remake than had those of the short-lived TV series '666 Park Avenue' or for 'The Devil's Advocate'. Had the couple in the remake known enough French they might have realised that the name displayed on the front of the Castevets' building, 'la chimère (from Greek 'chimaera), means a fabulous beast or monster.

A very poor film with a big unwillingness

[Victor_Santamaria · 2/10 · 21 September 2018]

When you have the original film as a precedent (one of the best films ever made) you have to try harder and I wish you good luck...The problem here is that everything is wrong. There is a wonderful and weird lack of will in making the movie. They did not try harder, they did not even try...

Seriously? Some people have way too much money

[kittykitkat-2-650557 · 1/10 · 16 May 2014]

*Laughing* Please do not watch this, not unless you want to pick up pointers on how not to do something. I have never watched anything as bad as this on my telebox before. How did anyone get this produced, IMDb scoring over 6??? How? Was it a high school production? Charity? No?... Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Is it supposed to be bad? Am I missing something? I'm laughing writing this, still got 10 mins left to watch. I must see it through to the end. hahahahahahahaha what a waste of time, money, energy. Go do something good instead of making the worst production ever. I'm sure my 14 yr could have done a better job. Go watch 666 Park Ave ... way way way better than this.

Pushed it in 1968 but 2014? Come on!

[amita-432-85777 · 1/10 · 17 May 2014]

I've seen the original perhaps a dozen times over the years and find it to be a fairly decent film for the time-period (1968). I rather well like it actually.It is true to the time, Mia Farrow is great, I love Ruth Gordon and how pushy the two oldies are and how smarmy John Cassavettes is. It totally works.

This re-make stumbles and falls. Face first.

Zoe Saldana plays Rosemary like she's still stuck in 1968. I don't know any women in this day and age who would behave like such sniveling, crying, Stepford wives. Half the time she has no clue what's going on around her, the other half she's sobbing and making a truly unattractive crying face and blubbering all about.

She has no life except to support her husband's ambitions (not an actor this time but writer). She has one friend who ends up getting brutally killed in a kitchen accident in the second episode of the two-parter. This is one of a number of deaths (but more personal because it is her best friend) that Rosemary endures surrounding her once she and her husband move into this creepy building owned by Roman and Margaux Castevet who semi-adopt Rosemary and her snarky chin-less husband (who always has a five day growth of beard) in a weirdo sex-cultish inappropriate kind of way.

This is different from the original film because the couple was considerably older, more like grandparents to the nubile Rosemary. In this version there are even lesbian undertones between Rosemary and Margaux and of course later we know what Roman has been up to as well. Though I might be confused by this since Roman is Steven Mercato and he is also supposed to be the Devil? In the original is was a beast who rapes Rosemary. In this version it is Steven Mercato/Roman Castevet.

Rosemary keeps finding out things that are horrible and terrifying (like all the people dying around her including her best friend whom she just sobs over a little and promptly completely and totally FORGETS) and is going to make her stand but never does because someone gets killed or dies unexpectedly and she has to go to a funeral. She gets preoccupied by her baby shower with all these weird older people (and none of her own friends and neither she nor her husband have any family either). Then when she finds out that they are "all satanic witches" (though this material nor the original makes no actual distinction between witches who have no devil and are not satanic and just dumps all witches into the believer and follower of Satan category - how very 1600's of them)her husband acts like she's lost her mind and she's having a break- down. She cries and sobs and whines and howls and keens through the entire thing.

There's a brief moment when Rosemary looks things up on the internet but it is glossed over. This Rosemary is no feminist, she is a pregnant mess, crying and weeping uncontrollably and unable to make a decision or take care of herself. And she is totally her husbands (and everyone's) bitch which in 1968 was offensive but in 2014 is ridiculous.

This re-make does not work in the 21st century. Satanists aren't witches and anyone with Google can find that out in a heartbeat. Witchcraft and spells have absolutely NOTHING to do with Satanism. Witchcraft is part of pagan earth-based religion. Satanism is a reversal of Christianity. I would have hoped in altering things from the source material for this version they might have gotten that right.

I can excuse the 1968 version for its ignorance but not this version. This makes it insulting to any pagan or witch to be lumped in with Satanists once again when no pagan belief system even has a Devil- figure.

Hollywood recycles another classic original film into a weak and pandering re-make that is tiresome and laughable.

Jason Issacs mugging with his evil-eye staring had me nearly laughing out loud at how sneeringly comical it was.

For the record New York City is much creepier than Paris. I even felt bad for Paris to have to co-star in such a crappy re-make. And all French people, though fortunately almost none are in the film. How interesting that you can go and live in Paris and everyone is British.

As a curiosity this would be amusing if it was about an hour and half shorter. As it stands you'll be rolling your eyes and checking the time as you snore toward the end.