Rosemarys Baby Digital

I watched the mini-series on NBC when it aired and i was not impressed at all. There is nothing special about this show and calling it a re-make is a disgrace to the original. Bland acting from Rosemarys husband and bland setting and atmosphere.

Zoe carries this remake quite well, the rest of the cast are all properly off/creepy. One off for.just average intensity/atmosphere. Enjoy!

ROSEMARYS BABY - the original 1968 film version directed by Roman Polanski - was smart, stylish, sardonic, sensational and superb - all the things, indeed, that this needless remake is not. This allegedly modern retelling is, in fact, what it actually is: and that is a TV movie fatiguingly drawn out to accommodate its every-few-minutes commercial breaks - so, therefore, it is laden with all the myriad and predictable cliff-hanging moments indicative of those coming commercial breaks. Of course, there are no actual commercials during the film on this DVD - except for the irritating previews one must either watch or skip through to get to the main event - but the rapid succession of fade-to-blacks are the fingerprints of this productions primary commercial function. In short, it is dragged out and padded and instead of keeping viewers on the edge of their seat, it is equally likely to cause one to snuggle back in their seat - and possibly even doze off. It isnt that this take on Ira Levins classic is awfully bad - it just isnt terribly good. In listening to the director and star/producer Zoe Rosemary Saldana talk of their undertaking and the need to offer this day and age a newer perspective on Rosemarys character just made me laugh - for there is nothing in this vision and version of Rosemary that isnt in the character as first exquisitely embodied by Mia Farrow - and, in all honestly, there is a far amount less. Also postulated - especially by director Agnieszka Holland - is that in her version she tried to offer up not so much a horror tale, but a psychological one wherein viewers never quite know what is real or what is merely imagined by Rosemary in her eventually pregnant and possibly paranoidal state. But this is hogwash! Yes, indeed, such a perspective can be most definitely applied to the Polanski version - until the last, chilling moments. However, we see the Devil in the first few minutes in Hollands film. We also are privy to a series of gratuitously violent rub-outs of various characters who get too close to the truth of the very-real witchery involved. And this body-count of deaths-by-Devil are so imitative in style and feel to the killings in THE OMEN, that this miniseries seems like a weird hybrid of both ROSEMARYS BABY and THE OMEN. One saving grace: Jason Isaacs (playing the Satan sycophant) is always a pleasurable pain to watch, ever since his evil incarnate turn in THE PATRIOT. French actress Carole Bouquet as his sincerely hypocritical wife is also a delight. But Patrick Adams doesnt fit in John Cassavetes shoes and hardly seems to be wearing any all his own, and Zoe Saldana is, well, no Mia Farrow. And not that she should be - except, in not bringing anything new and unique to the role herself, well, comparisons are inevitable. Curiously, on the back of the DVD we are told in fairly large letters without quotation marks or critical attribution that ZOE SALDANA HYPNOTIZES. But she really doesnt. And how curious that nowhere on the DVD casing are any of the others actors (with the exception of Patrick Adams) even mentioned, nor is the director or any of the production team. Well, with four Saldanas as producers - including the films star - I suspect these omissions may very well have been by commission. One good thing: given the coming Halloween season my appetite has been whetted to watch ROSEMARYS BABY again - the Polanski version, that is.

One of the greatest remakes.

There are a few car accident scenes in this movie. But in truth, the entire production is one mesmerizing car crash. There was no need to remake Rosemarys Baby. I viewed the original for the first time two years ago, and it didnt seem so dated as to warrant a new version. The original is a classic; this is forgettable. Whats worse, this version is very long. In its television miniseries broadcast, it was split into two movie-length parts. The only thing worse than a bad movie is a long bad movie. Whats different between the two versions? Plot-wise, not much at all. Some of the few significant changes, though, are off the mark and only serve to distract the viewer. First and foremost among them: Rosemary is black! Casting decided to fill the role memorably portrayed by Mia Farrow with a black actress that Ive never heard of before...within a script that completely ignores the fact that shes black. She and her white husband, Guy, are urban Americans residing in France, and yet Rosemary is the whitest American black woman next to Halle Berry: soft-spoken, delicate, dainty, and actually emulative of Mia Farrows depiction of the character, which this movie was reputedly meant to bring forward into the modern age. Why? What was the point? By all means, there would be no problem with making her black, but at least allow the character to be informed by that identity. Having her be black is also somewhat odd, though, since Rosemary isnt exactly the most common name given to urban black women. It isnt as though they could have changed that detail, though, without changing the title of the movie. At one point another character (Margaux) comments on the strangeness of her name, but only manages to respond to it by calling it feminine. As opposed to what? All the butch girls names out there? Even the writers could sense that something was off, but they could barely put a finger on it, let alone offer a rebuttal. How bizarre. Another change is the age of the main antagonists, the Castevets. In the original, these were played by the elderly. Here in the remake, the couple, Roman and Margaux, are middle aged. This alteration is actually more of a problem than one might first think. In both versions the Castevets have an ulterior motive for befriending Guy and Rosemary, but in the original this comes off as more plausible, as an old retired couple doting upon their younger neighbors. Played by a younger couple, though, their interest in Guy and Rosemary is strikingly odd, so much so that a sane Guy and Rosemary should have been turned off by the scarcely warranted attention. This is papered over by having Rosemary do a good deed for Margaux in returning her stolen wallet, but the scale of the favors that Margaux returns to her in exchange are glaringly lopsided (a cat, an apartment, a closet of fitted clothes, unyielding attention). And this is all before Guy makes a deal with the devil. It doesnt make sense. Rosemary has two advocates. One is Julie, who is her peer (and, as the plot requires, a convenient expert on Coptic Christian trivia), and the other is police Commissioner Fontaine, who she meets initially at Romans party. This is also problematic, in that the incorruptible officer is introduced to the viewer in a venue otherwise populated by Romans sycophantic satanists. It would seem sloppy for Roman to have included him on the guest list. Nonetheless, the script, actors, and director do a good job with these two characters, who are unique to the remake, and their inevitable death scenes are fun. All the other major plot points are straight out of the original movie, phoned in with little in the way of inspiration. I think the only difference in the final cradle scene is that its shot from the opposite end of the room from the original. This movie is not up to the caliber of a truly good miniseries remake, such as Steven Kings the Shining. Despite its length, it brings nothing new to the table and fails to make a case for its needing to have been produced.

Why a mini-series? Nothing against the actors, but this movie was waaaay too long. We all know whats really going on to begin with, so there was no need to stretch this out into two parts. Valium doesnt work as well as this flick when it comes to relaxation. Cant sleep? Put on this remake, child.

Great !!

You cannot improve on the original, but Zoe Saldana is very appealing as the young woman who is taken in unwittingly by a coven that wants her to have a demonic child. Waiting for part two.

Youll needed to try it l loved the movie. I love everything on my Amazon Fire HD tablet and Amazon.com . I love to look and shop on Amazon.com. Thanks again. Love , Patty Thilman