A part of me has such mixed feelings about all these remakes of various classic movies that now have Black starring characters. Not because I am against seeing diversity, but because I'd rather see money put into original media than rehashes of old media. Especially when, in films like Rosemary's Baby, all that seems to change is the skin tone. There is no cultural adaptation, or even a recognition that something has changed in comparison to the original, it is just a darker face which once was played by a white person. For more on the film, look below.Characters & StoryIf you've seen the original, not much has changed structure wise. A young woman and her husband find themselves moving into a building with strange owners; the wife is unemployed, but not without things to do; and as her husband finds himself rising both economically and socially, she finds him changing in ways which makes him not seem like the man she fell in love with. And while, at first, she has a decent relationship with her neighbors, her landlords in this film, as time wears on they become odder and odder, and while she slightly questions things, she never pursues running away from the situation fully. This is despite multiple warnings, horrible nightmares, and coincidental murders which would be red flags for normal people. But with things going well, until nearly the end, there is the question of how ignorant is Rosemary and why was this film remade?PraiseA part of me feels like Zoe Saldana should be applauded for becoming the new Halle Berry. Someone who looks "exotic," has the ability to come off vulnerable or strong, and can bring that to any role. Something which helps ease the boredom which comes with watching Rosemary's Baby, especially if you've seen the original.CriticismHowever, like with the many remakes that decide to put a physical racial spin on things, you are sort of left wondering what was the point? For while the Whitney Houston and Brandy starring Cinderella, Dorothy Dandrige in Carmen Jones, and maybe this year's Annie maybe an exception, generally it just seems like the money put into these remakes could have gone to better places. Take for example: rather than do a remake of a well-known movie, and use the name of the movie and a few recognizable actors as the basis of why people should watch, why not make something original or inspired? What was really keeping Rosemary's Baby from taking place in Louisiana and adapting things to which perhaps Hollywood's perception of Voodoo could have been used in lieu of Satanism? I mean, while there are some remakes which many have fallen in love with, and would argue are on par, or better, than the original, when movies are simply new faces in old roles; a modern retelling; or even race swaps which either don't seem culturally influenced, or are done for some shallow type of diversity, it makes me wonder who is the person so willing to throw money away on media like this?Overall: Skip ItAs said in the overview, just watch the original. For while Saldana certainly isn't horrible as Rosemary, at the same time you can see she is more so channeling Mia Farrow than making this her role and trying to make you feel any of this is original. I guess, like the Psycho remake of the 90s, this film wanted to cash in on a known brand with new actors. Something which it doesn't succeed in doing in any sense since the film tries to change things to create some sense of originality, but in the end it feels like no one really wanted to put their own spin on things and only changed things just enough so no one could say this was a modernized shot for shot remake to add onto its deserved criticism.

Out of respect for Ira Levin's novel and Roman Polanski's film, my wife and I watched this two-part miniseries. On the positive side, I actually liked the Paris setting. (The 1967 novel and '68 film version were set in Manhattan). Because of its medieval history, Paris does seem like it would be more accessible for demonic activity. After that, forget it. We know Polanski is alleged to have been a pedophile, but he certainly knew how to plumb the dark corners of human endeavors in his films and his version of this story is far superior. And then there's the casting. Zoe Saldana is a very good actress - but she's no Mia Farrow. Farrow's frail, waif-like appearance perfectly suited a woman with a satanic pregnancy. And why was it necessary to cast an African-American actress? The director seems to be self-consciously reminding viewers that since Obama is president, the protagonist needs to have her race changed. The actor playing Guy, Rosemary's husband, is dull and vapid. However, Carole Bouquet, playing next door neighbor Margaux, is wonderful - sexy and seductive. Final word: Skip this version. Read the novel and watch the original film.

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 members.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.

I am a huge fan of the original movie by Polanski so I concede I am biased in my opinion of this mini series which I just finished watching, and felt compelled to write a brief review."Rosemary's Baby" (2014) should have never been made. Never mind my feeling that originality and risk no longer exists in the corporate Hollywood machinery, that's been suffocated years ago. I was hoping that Agnieszka Holland might inject something new or interesting into this story, alas, that did not happen. There were a lot of deaths, somewhat gruesome, and totally unnecessary and felt very frivolous. An unforgettable scene in the original where Rosemary rips into a raw steak was rewritten: with the steak turned into chicken guts. All I could think of was salmonella; I also know a few women who were pregnant and most of them were super careful when prepping chicken. The scene felt ridiculous. In fact, I felt that way throughout the whole time I watched this mini series.I wouldn't recommend this version to anyone.