Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

ersinkdotcom 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.

en231337 Whoever did the casting, must have hated Roman Polanski, and must have been determined to ruin this movie. Well, they did a grand job, and Zoe was the right choice to make this movie a real pain to watch. She is just so counter-everything that might have made the otherwise interesting twists work and turn the new interpretation into a real 21st century makeover!! Come on, did it have to be politically correct and star a world-wide unknown non-white actress as its bargain chip?! She was horrible, really ruined it all for me. I am sorry to say, this is a flop. Just a big flop. I sincerely and wholeheartedly recommend you to give this one a miss. Hopefully, now the review has enough lines, so that I don't have to write more horrible (deservedly so!) things on Zoe's performance!

ColeBanks 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.

SnoopyStyle 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.