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.

cherie-r-gunn I liked the movie. The actors played their parts very well. I loved Roman Polanski's 1968 version. At the time it was filmed it great directed film by a great director. Ruth Gordon Oscar winning performance as Minnie Castevet can not be duplicated. They changed the focus from Minnie and Rosemary to Roman and Rosemary. The new view from a different character is a totally different Rosemary's Baby 2014. I think the movie was tastefully done and all the main characters show depth and how everything was not what it seemed. I also liked the fact theyspent a lot of less time on Saperstien. I liked the fact we saw how conflicted Guy was almost up to the end. But to say the the movies was bad is not fair. I thought it was very good, not great, but very good. Also to be honest those of us who loved the original one it was VERY ONE DIMENSIONAL. The new one had more background on the characters. Bravo, it was a good remake for television.

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.