My wife is watching it. I’m paying a bit of attention, but it seems to be a steaming pile of crap; half of it looks like bad outtakes from “Hannibal”.
Anyone liking it?
I thought they were remaking it into a movie. I didn’t know it was a tv series. I can’t imagine it being very good.
He has his father’s eyes with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.
I watched it & it is a rather unique take on things. Won’t replace the classic but it’s not a desecration, either.
Mini-series. It’s in two parts. The first part was last night, the second part is Thursday night.
I don’t think I ever saw the original - so I’m not sure how this one is in comparison - but I was entertained for two hours last night and expect to be entertained for another two on Thursday. 
I never heard of it before - how is it different? Feel free to spoiler if you like.
Regards,
Shodan
I saw it this weekend online. Compared with the original novel and film…found it very meh. Considering all the blood and gore they added, it felt surprisingly anemic.
Did inspire me to rewatch the original, which I’d only seen once before so that was good.
Wondering if Sampiro or Annie Xmas will weigh in—remember they’ve both had a lot of awesome stuff to say about it over the years.
Can someone who has seen this tell me (in a spoiler box in case others wander in and don’t want to read open spoiling) if you get to see the damn baby in this version?
When I was a kid, ten, eleven, I saw all but the last 10 minutes of the orginal, which I didn’t particularly like. But in high school I found a copy of the book and flipped to the end to see what I missed and discovered the end is a description of the baby. That was kind of interesting. So later on, I sat through the whole damn movie…only to discover they copped out at the end and never show the baby 
I’m not bothering with this one if they do the same thing.
Sure. As for the baby…
They do show it. Except it doesn’t have horns or a tail or hooves like in the book. It’s really cute. Then it opens its eyes and they’re an unnerving shade of blue. Just like the blue of Steven Marcato (who’s the devil in this…or something). It’s pretty underwhelming.
I actually liked the original movie’s take. It’s more horrifying I think not to see it. It would probably have looked a bit cheesy at the time, too.
I watched the first part and was completely unimpressed with it. Wow, look, an interracial marriage: how progressive of them. :rolleyes: For its time, the movie was innovative and eerie and generated some discussion about god and devil. This time around, it’s just tedious and unnecessary.
Finally got around to watching it on the DVR. At least the first 30 minutes or so, when I turned it off. I don’t know if it was the lack of action, or the bloody gore.
Come to think about it, it’s because there’s no Ruth Gordon - she was a hoot in the original!
I thought by not having Mia Farrow to stink it up it might be a better story.
I was wrong.
Me, I’m always happy to spend time with Zoe Saldana.
If her character wasn’t so insanely bland and surrounded by characters even more boring, I’d even watch part 2.
I would heartily recommend anyone who’s seen the original to then watch Polanski’s The Tenant, which assumes you’ve already seen Rosemary’s Baby and is one of the best horror films ever.
Seconded. The novel by Roland Topor was brilliant and Polanski did it full justice when he filmed it. It’s one of my favorite movies. And (of course) there’s a remake of The Tenant too, Le Nouveau Locataire. I’m not going to hold my breath.
I love the original film. This was unsurprisingly mediocre. But for a couple of bloody scenes, it could’ve aired on Lifetime. Would’ve fit nicely with their “evil husband” motif.