Rosemary's Baby (2014)

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I thought this was going to be on the similar lines as the original. I thought, 'Hey great' we have a true production of multiculturalism. Except is isn't is it? We have a mixed race Rosemary GREAT, we have a couple of 'Cameos' of a Chinese Asian man, but the majority of the horrible demon worshiping fanatics are 'White European!'I'm sorry, but if Europe is so 'Diverse', then where are the Indian Asians? Where are the Arabs? Where are the Pakistani Asians? Ooh, I know, this is just another attempt from self loathing far leftist idiots, literally DEMONIZING white people! Get over yourselves! Europe is sick of having this claptrap shoved down their throats! We are white, we are NOT ashamed & we are NOT self loathing virtue signalling brainwashed idiots!

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.

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.

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.