VidMate
Free YouTube video & music downloader
ACTOR
Zoe Saldana Patrick J. Adams Carole Bouquet Christina Cole
DIRECTOR
N/A
SYNOPSICS
La semilla del diablo (2014) is a movie. N/A has directed this movie. Zoe Saldana, Patrick J. Adams, Carole Bouquet, Christina Cole are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2014. La semilla del diablo (2014) is considered one of the best movie in India and around the world.
Modern 4 hour mini-series adaptation of the classic novel by Ira Levin focusing on young Rosemary Woodhouse's suspicions that her neighbors may belong to a Satanic cult who are hell bent on getting one thing: the baby she is carrying.
Same Actors
La semilla del diablo (2014) Reviews
A Little Better Than OK (but not by much)
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.
The changes ruin the story
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.
This Rosemary is a Flat Old Dud
OK, so Agnieska Holland ain't the world's greatest director but she has made at least two very good films, EUROPA, EUROPA and SECRET GARDEN, plus one that really dazzled me, OLIVIER, OLIVIER. But this ROSEMARY is just a flat old dud. Tons of unnecessary changes that totally undermine all the suspense. The film looks like any typical USA film or bland TV series on the CW. One very nice performance from Carole Bouquet who is very different from Ruth Gordon in Polanski's masterpiece. Zoe Saldana is no Mia Farrow but she is very sympathetic but it's as if the filmmakers are embarrassed to use her in any interesting way. Adding to this feeling is that it's 4 hours long with commercials and it feels rushed!
Not an improvement but I like the Paris location
After suffering a miscarriage, Rosemary (Zoe Saldana) and Guy Woodhouse (Patrick J. Adams) move to Paris. They have one friend there, Julie (Christina Cole). Guy is a struggling writer who is completely blocked. Soon they befriend Margaux (Carole Bouquet) and Roman Castevet (Jason Isaacs). They take in the couple to their beautiful exclusive apartment building. I love the Paris location but this is an unnecessary remake. The running time is way too long. The 1968 original is already long. I can accept that since the movie was so well made and also that's the style of that era. This one is even longer, and it's not better for it. The cast is just as impressive as the original. Zoe Saldana doesn't have the fragility of Mia Farrow but she does frantic very well. I like Patrick Adams as the husband more than John Cassavetes. He's a puppy-face pretty boy. The switch for his character is harsher and more heart breaking. Jason Isaacs is a compelling villain and it's nice to see french beauty Carole Bouquet again. Although I miss Ruth Gordon. There is something about an old creepy witch. It matches. The last group scene is also not an improvement. The old scene from the original is claustrophobic. It used to be interior and closed off. It is creepier, scarier, and ultimately much more effective. Like many changes from the original, it is neither effective nor an improvement.
Entertaining and thrilling at times - not as good as the original
There's two ways you can react to a new version of "Rosemary's Baby." The first one is to completely write it off and make the assumption that no one could do a better job of adapting Ira Levin's bestseller than Roma Polanski did in 1968. The other reaction is to take it as a new vision of the book that isn't trying to be a remake of the first movie and enjoy or hate it for what it is according to its own merits. I think the one thing we can all agree on is that if the Satanic Panic- type films of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s are going to be introduced to a whole new generation of viewers, there's no better place to start than with "Rosemary's Baby." After all, it really is where the trend began for mainstream moviegoers. Young Rosemary Woodhouse (Zoe Saldana) and her husband (Patrick J. Adams) move to Paris after he is offered a job there. After a residential fire, the couple are invited to live in a luxurious apartment by landlord's Roman (Jason Isaacs) and Margaux Castevet (Carole Bouquet). Rosemary becomes pregnant and her eccentric neighbors shower her with kindness and devotion. She begins to suspect they're only after one thing following an investigation into the building's mysterious ties to the occult. Rosemary believes the supportive bunch are a coven of witches looking to sacrifice her baby to stay young. There's no doubt in my mind that everyone involved in the new version of "Rosemary's Baby" was dedicated to the project. Zoe Saldana completely embraces her role as the damaged-yet-hopeful Rosemary, who desperately wants to do the right thing for her unborn child. Jason Isaacs and Carole Bouquet are deliciously wicked playing the reserved but extremely persuasive Castevets. "Rosemary's Baby" is not rated. However, I would give it a PG-13 rating for adult situations, sensuality, and disturbing images. There's a bit of gore and some sex scenes without nudity. There's no heavy religious message to be found within "Rosemary's Baby." If it teaches you anything, it's that you need to be careful what you're willing to sacrifice for material success and temporary happiness. Although it deals with Satan and his powers, it's not evangelical in any form and doesn't preach at the viewer in regards to their spiritual life. People who have never seen Roman Polanski's "Rosemary's Baby" and haven't read anything about it will no doubt enjoy this updated version more than those already exposed to the classic tale. I found it to be entertaining and thrilling at times. Was it as good as Polanski's 1968 version? I wouldn't say so. Did it seem to dig a little deeper and expand on the concept more than the original? Yes, considering it was a two-part movie and had around 34 minutes more to flesh things out.