Rosemary's Baby - Page 5

JustJules · ‎06-25-2013

I started to watch it, but the show kept getting interrupted by weather warnings....we were having severe thunderstorms and tornado watches Sunday night. I recorded it (what there is to see) and want to see the 2nd part on Thursday night, although I think that will be the most graphic episode. It's a remake for TV of a classic movie, so it's never going to be quite the same. I think Zoe S. is a beautiful and talented actress. I saw some of her promotional interviews and she said she has never seen the original movie, chose not to, only read the book and then did her own interpretation.... so it's not like she is trying to copy Mia in any way. It's just a tv show afterall... the topic was evil in the original, and still is... not sure why that seems to surprise some? Not like they were going to change the theme. It doesn't live up to the movie, but it's a modern twist and just another interpretation.

mousiegirl · ‎03-09-2010

On 5/13/2014 sunala said:
The original movie was PERFECT.

I've seen the original so many times and never get tired of it.

Is there not one original mind left in the entertainment industry?

I agree!

colliemom4 · ‎09-08-2010

I liked the original and didn't think a remake could be any better so I wasn't really interested. I'm glad that those who watched and liked it enjoyed it.

Shorty2U · ‎03-09-2010

DH and I just watched it tonight on In Demand. SOME parts grossed me out but now that we watched the 1st part we will watch the 2nd part. And as someone mentioned it reminded us of the 666 Park Ave. show that was on. To add- I don't think the girl playing Rosemary is a very good actress.

And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make~ The Beatles

MomOf4 · ‎01-28-2012

On 5/13/2014 Shorty2U said:
DH and I just watched it tonight on In Demand. SOME parts grossed me out but now that we watched the 1st part we will watch the 2nd part. And as someone mentioned it reminded us of the 666 Park Ave. show that was on. To add- I don't think the girl playing Rosemary is a very good actress.

I didn't think of it Shorty but it really is like 666 Park Ave. I thought it was disturbing too but will watch Part 2 just to see if it's like the original. Glad it's only 2 nights long.

Moonlady · ‎03-10-2010

On 5/13/2014 NoelSeven said:
On 5/12/2014 sidsmom said:
On 5/12/2014 JMFINLEY001 said:
Plus the original was sooo good and perfectly cast that I think making this sequel was a big mistake!!!!!

Hollywood's running out of ideas. Zoe is too Se-y....Mia was a perfect blend of weird quirky & innocence. NO ONE can recreate that.

I don't think TV is Hollywood.

LOL, it's not? :think:

The things you learn on these boards! ${#emotions_dlg.w00t}$

What worries you masters you.

LilacTree · ‎03-25-2012

On 5/13/2014 MomOf4 said:
On 5/13/2014 Shorty2U said:
DH and I just watched it tonight on In Demand. SOME parts grossed me out but now that we watched the 1st part we will watch the 2nd part. And as someone mentioned it reminded us of the 666 Park Ave. show that was on. To add- I don't think the girl playing Rosemary is a very good actress.

I didn't think of it Shorty but it really is like 666 Park Ave. I thought it was disturbing too but will watch Part 2 just to see if it's like the original. Glad it's only 2 nights long.

I also likened it to 666 Park Avenue, which I watched probably one-half of the first episode and that was that, except for excerpts here and there between commercials. That one died after perhaps half a season? At least they were smart enough to keep this one to a two-parter.

I watched the first part and then switched to Revenge and have no interest in seeing the second part.

Formerly Ford1224
We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Elie Wiesel 1986

I like celery · ‎06-23-2010

On 5/13/2014 Moonlady said:
I saw it, and will watch part II, but I thought it was ridiculous. The graphic gore is gratuitous and, apparently, obligatory in today's world of Saw and Teens-In-A-Cabin ${#emotions_dlg.crying}$ movies. It's nothing like the original movie which, BTW, was extremely faithful to the novel.

The film was big on ambiguity and implied goings-on, though adults knew what was happening. It worked.

All this movie is missing is 1) revealing what the baby looks like instead of leaving it to the viewers' imagination and, 2) a tacky cameo by that little gnome Polanski (which Polanski wanted to do, and which was nixed by the PTB--they must've known the miniseries was bad enough).

Thanks for this post, Moonlady. I still haven't watched what I DVRed, but will at least give it a shot. Sounds like the majority of posters here didn't like it, but I'm still curious.

♥ Life is beauty full ♥

DoneTryin · ‎03-09-2010

Are screenwriters today so unimaginative that they can't find something original to write?

The Ira Levin book was/is a good read, & the original film was very well done. I don't see any reason for remaking it & have no intention of watching it.

Moonlady · ‎03-10-2010

On 5/13/2014 moonstone dunes said:
The original movie still scares me. I can't watch the ending when the "eyes" are shown. This version is hokey, they stuck in every stereotype possible. Upside down cross, orgies, Even the blood coming out of the skin, creepy skeleton bones and "flies" in one scene like Amityville Horror.

Those eyes are not the baby's eyes. When Rosemary screams and asks what they've done to the baby's eyes, and people comment that "he has his father's eyes" and say "Hail Satan," Rosemary starts to remember that it wasn't her husband in bed with her, but Satan, and the vision of his eyes comes back to her.

What worries you masters you.