one of my absolute favorites!

Memorable, crazy movie

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Even though the 1968 version is better,this new version explains everything much better.I couldn't quite understand the first movie and what and why some things were happening,but the new version has a much clearer vision.It's a good remake definitely,despite its differences.I also think that in this remake Mrs and Mr Castevet are more weird and creepy/scary,maybe better than in the first movie.Really liked this one!

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.

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.

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.