‘Rosemary’s Baby’ Reboot

Yeah, I get tired when I watch Polanski's "Rosemary's Baby," too.

Yeah, I get tired when I watch Polanski’s “Rosemary’s Baby,” too.

This is going to sound like sacrilege, but I have to say it:  I never liked Roman Polanski’s “Rosemary’s Baby.”  There, my secret is out.  It’s treated like some sort of classic of slow-burn horror by most people who have seen it, but from what I could tell, it’s just slow.  In some ways the hype that surrounds it is like that that typically accompanies Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey,” which is a gorgeous movie, with some great practical special effects by Brian Johnson–the movie, in a visually sense, led directly to Gerry Anderson’s “Space: 1999″–but my God, is it boring!

And long, Oh, so long.

And I understand that there’s very little in the way of atmosphere in space, which is why all that noise those fighters were making in the ‘Star Wars’ films, among others, is utter nonsense, but Kubrick’s film aimed for realism, and it found it, making space travel seem ordinary and mundane.

“Rosemary’s Baby” did the same thing for Satanic cults and Satan:  Made them both sort of dull and uninteresting.  In fact, I like to think that William Friedkin’s 1973 film, “The Exorcist,” was as bizarre as it was as a counterweight to the mundane nature of Polanski’s 1968 film.

And as much vitriol is felt for Sam O’Steen‘s “Look What Happened To Rosemary’s Baby” (Admittedly, it’s pretty bad), it’s at least an visually interesting and somewhat engaging film, unlike Polanski’s.

Do You Want To Know More?  

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s