Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

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

phd_travel I wanted to give this a chance since I loved the original Roman Polanski movie so much. And I was open minded to a change in setting from New York to Paris - after all it's no point making a shot for shot remake of a perfect movie. But comparing this with the original this version is a travesty. There are so many changes that aren't for the better, they are for the worse.The casting is bad. Zoe Saldana doesn't have the angelic wide eyed innocence of Mia Farrow. Jason Isaacs as Roman Castavets looks too obviously sinister from the get go, he is just too obvious. Patrick J Adams tries but isn't shifty enough. Carole Bouquet is the best of the lot she is sophisticatedly sinister but without the motherly benign façade that Ruth Gordon had her character doesn't work either.The changes in the story were disastrous. Revealing Guy's collusion with the Castavets and the real nature of the Castavets so early on takes away all the tension that was in the original. The dialog isn't as good especially when they departed from the original. It lacks subtlety. Having such gory ends for the victims doesn't take it into the 21st Century - rather it spoils the realistic base which made the original so much more chilling. In the original going blind was enough. Didn't have to have a throat slashing thing. The climax at the end when she finds her baby just falls flat especially where she wanted to kill it.It's a painful watch for fans of the original. If you look on it as a "Rosemary's Baby 2 - Paris" maybe you can bear it. Just be prepared the horror is in how bad the movie is compared to the original.

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.

ChaCha44 When you remake a classic, the goal should be to blow your audience away not barely make a ripple. As one of many viewers of the original, I was pretty open minded, an opportunity to see one of my favorite horror novels brought to the screen again and looking forward to seeing how they could improve on perfection (okay, maybe I wasn't so open minded).Hats off to the locale. A great choice Paris, urbane and dark, however the apartment building was nowhere near as creepy as The Dakota. The acting was believable with a good looking cast and at first held a lot of promise. Instead of eccentric senior folks, they are replaced by well dressed, well connected and attractive AARP .One of my main criticisms of this version is the excessive use of blood and guts. I recently read an interview with Zoe Saldana, who plays Rosemary Woodhouse and she said for today's audience they needed to make it bloody. Really? Gratuitous violence just like gratuitous sex feels false and detracts. How wonderful that the original didn't rely on jump scares(not found here but such a staple in modern horror) and horrific images. Nothing is more scary than the imagination.Is this the worst remake ever? No, not by any means. It was entertaining though a bit long. The main difference between this and the original is that in the original I didn't want it to end; in this version I couldn't wait for it to end.

Neely OHara 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 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.