What a stinking pile! Long, boring, and stupid. For dreck like this we are supposed to pardon Polanski for raping a little girl? Did I mention how long it was? The rape I can almost forgive, but the boredom of that movie should subject the man to penalties. I fail to see how the movie got such accolades when released. What a pile.
Do you like any of Polanski’s films? His stuff is definitely love it or hate it. Do you like horror films in general? It’s been many years since I’ve seen RB, but the recent discussion here has renewed my interest (your review of it notwithstanding;))
It seems to me that horror films in general don’t age well.
Especially 60s/70s devil films. That seemed to be a popular genre at the time, and a lot of studios pushed devil films out the door quickly. It shows.
Actually, I think good horror films age very well–it’s just that standards for modern horror films have devolved to cheap scares and gratuitous gore. Rosemary is fantastic in setting a mood, and allowing the tension to slowly percolate into genuine dread; movies often seem “long” if nothing happens for long stretches–but every scene in the film is important and adds subtle layers to the characterization and mood of growing anxiety. No film ever has so deftly handled the psychological and hormonal divisions (paranoia/protectiveness) that pregnancy can bring, and this is Mia Farrow’s finest performance, without question (though she gets plenty of very able support). The film may date a little because of the regressive view of women that was still largely accurate for the time period, but since the OP can’t cobble a coherent argument against the film other than that it’s “stupid” (oh, and “long”), I’m just going to operate on the assumption that he’s better off going back to something his own speed–Saw 9: Saw Harder perhaps?
As to the OP’s odious suggestion that people “forgive” Polanski his crime because of his films: well, that’s simply an ugly, facile strawman, and completely immaterial to one’s assessment of the film (which was made pre-Tate murders)–that is, unless you’ve already got a chip on your shoulder against the guy.
I always thought it was a pretty good movie. I don’t think the pacing is any slower than that of most other older horror movies. Compared to movies like “Frankenstein,” “Dracula,” “The Mummy,” it’s an adrenaline-fueled thrill ride.
I thought Polanski did a good job of building the sense of dread, and I still find the ending one of the more disturbing ones I"ve seen.
I saw it at a theatre in the 80s when they were running old films. I too thought it was boring and crap.
Especially since the previous two weeks had showings of Gaslight (1944) and Psycho (1960) both excellent.
As a supposed classic horror film this one did nothing for me.
I liked it but I read the novel first, so I didn’t really feel any of the dread, knowing what was to come. I mean, the tone and mood was good, and I remember feeling all of that creepy dread when I read the book the first time. But it’s just…it’s so hard re-experience those feelings in the exact same way you felt them the first time.
That’s fogey talk, there! 
I have no use for the Saw series, but I agree with the OP that Rosemary’s Baby hasn’t aged well. Horror evolves, and it’s a rare horror movie that still holds chills for younger audiences. (Why you seem to take this so personally is beyond me. Do you honestly still find, say, The Wolfman, scary?)
Standards haven’t “devolved”. Now as then, there are good horror films and bad horror films. The Ring, and Session 9, in recent years, were both excellent at building tension without a lot of “Boo!” moments.
Actually I’d like to defend the first Saw movie. (I didn’t watch after two which I found terrible.) I always thought it would be just plain gore, like torture porn–another Hostel. Despite the fact that it is pretty gory in places, what I liked about it was that there was good plotting and a psychological aspect to it.
Off topic but do you guys find that the issue of aging well is less of an issue with books? I do–maybe it’s because of special effects or the fact that I can’t make fun of actors and their terrible hair-dos.
I hardly take it personally (I could easily list a Top 500 movies without this film being anywhere in the vicinity). What I object to is the sheer vacuity of the OP. “It’s long and it’s stupid.” About as pointless and devoid of insight as an opinion can get. There’s no argument, just an assumption that of course it sucks! And subsequent posts suggesed “What do you expect? It’s old!”
And using “holding chills for younger audiences” is a pretty low standard, IMHO. Rosemary’s Baby taps into adult fears and adult issues, and requires both patience and attention (which is why what constitutes a “good” horror film to more modern audiences has indeed devolved, despite the exceptions you cite). Of course, now everyone seems to know the ending, so the sense of uncertainty (is it real, is it not) is lost, but this was one of the first mainstream horror films to really undermine one’s sense of what’s Real and what’s merely Imagined, and it still balances the two very well.
And while the Wolfman himself may not be very scary, The Wolfman is still a triumph of atmosphere and portentiousness–if for no other reason than Maria Ouspenskaya still delivers the goods. Its tragic arc still pierces through the cheesiness the way a lot of newer films with disposable characters don’t have a hope of doing.
Now get off my freakin’ lawn! 
Actually I think Rosemary still holds a lot of fears pertinent to women … no woman who was ever pregnant has avoided the self questioning of ‘is my baby healthy, will it be born perfect, am I doing everything I can to have a healthy baby’ there can be a lot of fear in a pregnancy even with all the spiffy tests.
Exactly. I’m a dude, so I didn’t want to presume to speak for women like that, but I certainly can’t think of another film that so viscerally dwells on these issues without sugar-coating or sentimentalizing the process.
I agree. The work of old authors like Lovecraft and Poe seems to hold up better than old visual horror.
Polanski’s masterpiece is Chinatown IMHO. Still not worthy of overlooking a crime for, but I will watch the film again and again despite his criminal background.
Fathers to be can have the same worries … it is just that we think of it as a mothers issue.
The best horror does address ‘visceral’ issues. I believe it was Stephen King in his book Macabre where he describes the imagery of sliding down a bannister that turns into razors being a very visceral issue for men … though I admit it makes me wince in horror as well!
I think that of the movies described do address visceral issues - zombies and cannibalism involve our body image, we all want our bodies to be inviolate in the grave. zombies are ripped out of their graves and forced to do something that they would not have normally done in life, and being eaten interferes with the image of a peaceful death. Ghosts are people who have disturbances preventing them from a peaceful death. Psycho is about not being safe, not having privacy. Gaslight and Rosemary’s Baby are about sanity and ones hold on sanity [in addition to teh reproductive issues, Rosemary is thought to be going a bit nuts from the hormones of pregnancy when it is actually real stuff going on, though there is a bit of a rape subtext when she passes out and hubby keeps on going so she can get pregnant]
By “younger audiences” I meant those who weren’t old enough to see the movie in its original release. I.e., Generation X and younger. The movie just doesn’t do it for most of us, I think. (Perhaps I should have said “modern audiences.”)
And I could cite plenty more “exceptions” from the post-slasher era (1978 forward) without breaking a sweat: Fallen, Frailty, The Sixth Sense, 1408, Angel Heart, The Shining, Alien, The Others, Let the Right One In, Funny Games, 28 Days Later, Interview With the Vampire, An American Werewolf in London…etc., etc.
The problem is you want to focus on schlock as if that were the only sort of horror film being produced in the modern era. But there was an equal or larger amount of schlock horror being produced in the 60s (as I’m sure you know, if you think about it). Beware selective memory.
My point and the OP’s point (however inartfully argued) stands: Rosemary’s Baby doesn’t hold up for modern audiences. Horror films often don’t. (Wait Until Dark is another example of a film that scared the bejeebers out of Baby Boomers but I think leaves modern viewers cold.)
Movie styles change. Pacing changes. And it doesn’t mean that modern viewers’ tastes are less sophisticated in some way; it just means that they are different. Do you really want to argue that Rosemary’s Baby is somehow vastly superior to The Sixth Sense? Be my guest, but I think most modern moviegoers will just be shaking their heads in stunned disbelief while you do.
OP back, hope this isn’t too much of a zombie to resurrect. It is just that the movie plods along without much “horror” and in the last ten minutes we get the reveal that something creepy is going on and they go into that other house and she goes and rocks the baby, The End. Feels tacked on.
And I have never seen any of the “Saw” movies. I guess horror movies just don’t really do it for me. As an atheist, not really frightened of the “Devil”. Wasn’t scared by Exorcist, Amityville Horror, Omen, or any of that stuff. Even “The Shining” wasn’t that scary because it was just Jack mugging it up. He is too damn famous to be frightening. I think Kubrick would have done much better casting an unknown there.
I can’t remember what I was watching, but there was a discussion of directorial techniques and one of the scenes was from Rosemary’s Baby. The camera is set in a hallway. It’s looking toward a bedroom and you see Ruth Gordon’s character Minnie Castevet sitting on the bed, but you only see a little bit of her. She’s talking on the phone and the viewer can’t quite make out what she’s saying, and can’t see her face. One of the commentators mentioned that in the theater, audiences would actually lean over to the right, as if trying to see around the doorway to get a better look at her and hear better.
I just thought that was interesting. I too read the book before seeing the movie so I knew what was coming, but I still enjoyed the movie.
I like the fact that there are still a lot of horror movies that focus on the psychological instead of the gory. Two of my favorite fairly recent ones were The Others, and The Orphanage. I’m actually kindof hankering to see The Orphan. Something about The O… movies is at work here.