Highly Overrated But Still Good

brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

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.

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.

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...

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.