MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

merelyaninnuendo Rosemary's BabyThe stunning background score, witty horrific image and the nail-biting tense surrounding that is offered in here is easy to give one the anticipated chills and goosebumps that stays with one throughout the course of it. Roman Polanski's smart adaptation with perfect editing is something to explore in it as it demands attention from the first frame. His work on execution too, is appreciative if not completely justified considering the potential of the script. On performance, Mia Farrow grows on you as it ages on screen but unfortunately isn't supported well enough except for Ruth Gordon's stellar performance. Rosemary's Baby is a smart take on its genre, for it may go into places where one has been before but still doesn't use the clichéd formula like appalling creatures or hide and seek show or a typical altered ego.

duccshmucc Why did roman blue ball us by not showing the baby? im sick of movies made out of reaction shots where the actual story is hidden from the audience. why would i want to look at the faces of actors expressing emotions that i should supposedly be feeling by watching, but get not even get to look at what the story is. looking at horrified faces wont make me feel horror in the slightest. its just taunting watching these actors talk about some satan baby that we get to see none of. the story was decent enough and the acting was good to its credit still.

Ian Rastall Polanski had already revealed a penchant for cruelty in his previous films, as well as the sadist's core belief that innocence equals victimhood and victimhood is a character defect that justifies cruelty. In "Repulsion" we get some voyeuristic fanservice of a fragile, virginal character (thanks to some careful lighting). In "Fearless Vampire Killers" we see the joke is that fearlessness has made the heroes into victims. But in "Rosemary's Baby" Polanski has created an entire film to be served up as delicious comedy to those in the know.The film needs Rosemary (think Virgin Mary, think thorns) to be innocent and weak. Sadists would see that right away as deliciously inviting. (If she were the girl at the beginning of Salo, those four monstrous men would indeed be on their feet at her pleas for help). She's in a web, and her future is already decided. That's one notable thing about this film. Her fate is already decided before the film starts, and we're just watching her approach that grim end helplessly.As one finds in transgressive cinema, or in, say, the writings of the Marquis de Sade, a sadist's fantasy would not be complete without a momentary escape for the victim. A seeming end to the madness. And we get that. Cruelty depends on crushing hope. Of course she is broken finally, and at that moment of tragedy made to submit to her captors.Her increasing hysteria is meant to be funny. Maybe to "straight" audiences -- or at least straight audiences unaware of the tropes of sadism -- this is scary. But I don't think it's really supposed to be that way.With all this going on in the background, "Rosemary's Baby" works very well on repeat viewings. It doesn't matter how down with the comedy you are. Study yields endless (bitter) fruit. And I can see why people say it's cursed. (Probably a myth.) It remains one of the most evil films ever released.Of course it also represents Polanski at a creative peak, and that's saying something. "Knife In The Water" and "Repulsion" were masterpieces in their own right, but this is a tour de force. Worth studying, for the camera, for the performances, for the atmosphere and detail -- as well as for the transgression beneath the suspense.

qmtv Boredom! Overrated. Everything is spelled out. Fine actors in a sub par story and direction, overlong film. Music sucked. Garbage ending. Garbage middle. Garbage beginning. Cult film. Excellent promotion.Another cult film disguised as a masterpiece. My first Roman Polanski film and last. I heard about this for years so I sat through this bore-fest, waiting for something to happen. Nothing did.The movie starts with the most disgusting and simple lullaby soundtrack over decent cinematography of Manhattan. Then we get a scene with completely underused Elisha Cook as a building manager showing an apartment to Mr. and Mrs. Woodhouse, John Cassavetes and Mia Farrow. Elisha Cook was a great actor and I will now recommend you to watch Messiah of Evil. Cook is in only one scene in that movie, but it is great. John Cassavetes is also a solid actor and he's been in some decent crime films. Mia Farrow was decent in the film but not great. The problem with the film is not the actors. It's the screenwriter, a guy named Polanski. The dialogue is all just everyday ordinary small talk boring crap for over 2 hours. It's not a horror film. It's Horrible.We meet the old neighbors, who are satin worshiping witches, Ruth Gordon and Sidney Blackmer. These are fine actors. Gordon won the Oscar for her performance. Maurice Herbert Evans plays a friend of the Woodhouses. But could have provided more entertainment if he had the orangutan outfit of Dr. Zaius from Planet of the Apes. Ralph Bellamy is a witch Dr. Abraham Sapirstein, and Charles Grodin as non witch Dr. Hill. All decent actors.Basic story: The Woodhouses move into an apartment next to witches. The witches cut a deal with the husband to help his acting career if the wife has satin's baby. The wife is drugged, impregnated by satin in a funky dream sequence that everyone who loves this pile of crap says is a great and spooky scene. Dr. Zaius tries to help the wife understand what is going on with the strange behavior of the neighbors and husband, but he is soon put under a coma and dies 3 months later. Now, maybe Polansky would show us a quick scene of Farrow visiting Dr. Zaius at the hospital. No, we just hear about his death 3 months later.After Zaius is dead, we find out that he came out of the coma briefly to tell the attendants that he has a book for Farrow. Great stuff right? No. The freaking guy just happens to come out of the coma briefly and thinks about Farrow's well being. They say it can only happen in movies and it did here. Now Farrow knows that there is a conspiracy against her and the baby, and she runs away and finds Dr. Hill, the un-witch doctor. The scene where she explains all the witch stuff to Dr. Hill is Unbelievable, again can only happen in movies. Dr. Hill knows she's nuts, has her lie down in a room and calls her husband and the witch Dr. who come and take her back to the apartment, where she eventually has her devil baby. We get some more boredom where they try to drug her and collect her breast milk to feed the devil baby. We get scenes where she hears the baby crying through the walls. Farrow finds a path to the next door apartment with the witches cult and all the idiots yelling Heil Satin! and she sees a baby crib. We never get to see the devil baby. She spits into her husband's face when he says they can now have normal babies. The baby starts to cry and now she accepts the devil baby. The End.So, is this devil baby the antichrist? Will this baby grow up to destroy the world? Why didn't the witches just impregnate a prostitute or a drugged out bum chick for the devil baby? They mentioned that Rosy was a catholic, was that a prerequisite for the devil to impregnate her? We don't know. We are just brainless movie goers. Who are we to question the great Polansky? FU Polansky! We then get a bonus track of the opening garbage lullaby reminding me that I should have shut it off with the first notes.Rating 1, or F. Complete failure. No suspense. Everything is spelled out. Unlikable boring characters. Disgusting music.Finally, I would like to mention the phenomenon of cult films. Rosemary's Baby has a cult following, people loving it for some reason, maybe pregnant mothers to be, who knows. Alien is another cult film. I hate the film, mainly because the story, characters, dialogue, everything just plain sucks. Alien won the Oscar for special effects, so maybe people love it for the props and sets. Another cult director is Dario Argeno. I hate his film Suspiria, mainly for the amateur story, acting, basically everything. But, it has a cult following, maybe because of all the funky cartoon colors he uses, or that stupid band Goblin making the music. Argento is crap. And his films Plumage and Four Flies are also crap. I also hate Dawn of the Dead. When I saw that years ago I was impressed. But watching it now, I see it as a cartoon amateur acting and story pile of crap. You need to make up your own mind. Please don't be fooled into loving a film because they label it as an art film.Recommended instead: Messiah of Evil, Footprints on the Moon, Last Man on Earth, Night of the Living Dead, White Zombie, All the Colors of the Dark, Don't Torture a Duckling.I skimmed through the IMDb user and critic reviews. Most love this crap as THE BEST HORROR FILM EVER. Nonsense! A handful are awake to this garbage. Click Hated It to see their thoughts.