Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 21 reviews in total 

22 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Bland, pointless TV sequel

Author: Vince-5 from northeastern PA
29 April 2001

You might want to see this tepid movie of the week out of morbid curiosity, but please, don't go out of your way. First off, Roman Polanski's Rosemary's Baby didn't need a sequel--the haunting, ambiguous ending is supremely creepy and leaves you with something to think about. And if it did need a sequel, it certainly didn't need one as poor as this. Note the numerous inconsistencies with the original: If Adrian/Andrew was born in 1966, why is he in his twenties by 1976? Why is the Manhattan apartment building now sitting on a huge lawn? Minnie and Roman are present, but where are the other members of the original coven? And why have they now decided to refer to the coven as "the tribe"?

And of course, a talented cast is entirely wasted. Ruth Gordon, who won an Oscar as Minnie in the original, is reduced to a braying cartoon character. A semi-recreation of the Satainic rape scene is really lame. This may have been made to cash in on The Omen, as it bears more resemblance to that film than it does to Rosemary's Baby. If you want to see better execution of a similar theme, see The Devil's Daughter (1972). Cult film reviewer Michael Weldon summed up this disaster with the sarcastic question, "How about a TV sequel to Repulsion, too?" Indeed.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

not bad, but not good

Author: Art Tizon
22 February 2003

I am only eleven years old, and even I think this is one of the most laughable movies ever! Patty Duke would have made a good Rosemary, if only there was another director! I know that she is a very good actress, for I saw her as a child in The Miracle Worker. I am a huge fan of the original and bidded for this movie and almost went as far as to pay 50 dollars for it. I finally found it for sixteen dollars on ebay.com. I got it and wondered why I even bothered, wasting all that energy over a very mediocre film! I heard there is a movie called Rosemary is Pregnant Again, and have wondered if it is connected in any way. I can't find it anywhere. All I know is thatthis movie will probably stay on my shelf forever until another unsuspecting victim comes in and wants to see it. Then, I can finally get rid of it! This film gets a 2/2 out of 5, for sheer dumb luck. I'd rather go watch the movie PI.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Ira Levin deserves an apology.

1/10
Author: triple8 from Conn
20 February 2004

I usually seek to find good in movies, even the bad ones.Unfortunately this movie is one where I fail miserably-and the fact that there's barely one positive review on this board shows many IMDb reviewers share my pain.

I don't usually watch sequels but I just had to see this since I love "Rosemary's Baby" so much. What a mistake that was. It simply reaffirms my belief in the fact that most sequels are lousy-though thankfully, very few are as bad as this. In fact in my mind this isn't even really a sequel, it's a satire on how bad a sequel can be. Movie recommended very highly for not viewing-at any time-ever.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Pure, unadulterated made-for-TV Doom

7/10
Author: GroovyDoom from Haddonfield, IL
13 November 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

One of the most unique prospects for making a sequel to a beloved horror flick: a *made-for-TV* horror flick??? "Look What's Happened to Rosemary's Baby" was delivered in the middle of the doomy 70s, when TV movies were actually considered scary. Just ask anybody who watched Karen Black fall to the ferocious attack of an ugly wooden doll. Just like its predecessor, "LWHTRB" attempts to leave most of the supernatural happenings hinted at rather than brought out into the light. By now you've heard all about this movie's bad rep, and indeed, look at that low rating here on IMDb. It's hard to deny that the film suffers from a number of chronic illnesses, like a small-screen budget, a number of lazy performances, and a lack of special effects.

But expectations for the sequel to "Rosemary's Baby" could be the real reason this movie does not succeed. Instead of a clockwork Ira Levin plot, which was so effectively dramatized by Roman Polanski and his brilliant cast, Sam O'Steen's sequel is a full blooded 70s freak-out, complete with hallucinogenic images, an untraditional narrative, and a downbeat tone that never lets up. At times it's ludicrous and amateurish, and other times it can be engaging in spite of itself.

Divided into three chapters, the first segment deals with Rosemary and her attempts to instill a sense of good in her son, Adrian. She insists his name is Andrew, something she tells him in private, and she tells him he is good and that he should not believe the evil things the coven tells him. Although she lives with the coven and bides her time, she makes a break when they decide it's time to indoctrinate the boy by performing a ritual with him. Rosemary escapes with him and gets him away from the coven, only to wind up stranded in a desert town. A hooker named Marjean takes her in, but Marjean winds up controlled by the coven, who see fit to dispatch with Rosemary by luring her onto a driverless bus. As she's carried away, pounding in panic at the windows, the film's most compelling moment takes place, a child separated from his mother and left in the care of a stranger.

From there, the final two segments deal with Adrian as an adult, and the coven is out to activate his evil side in any way they can. Adrian feels the good qualities that Rosemary instilled in him, however, pulling him in the other direction. An attempt to endow him with the spirit of Satan fails when Adrian's friend foils the ceremony, and Adrian sees his dead body in a Christlike hallucination. Following the incident, Adrian is confined to an institution, awakening from an undetermined period of catatonia to find that he's been blamed for his friends death and locked up. A seemingly sympathetic nurse helps him to escape, but of course she has motivations of her own.

This is not a great film, but it's definitely an unusual one. I can't think of many other hit films that were sequelized on television, although I'm sure it's been done before. But the real reason I love "Look What's Happened to Rosemary's Baby" are the doomy elements and the intriguing story, which really comes from left field. It avoids being obvious by being absolutely nuts.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Odious TV-made sequel...

1/10
Author: moonspinner55 from las vegas, nv
23 September 2007

Sam O'Steen, the film editor on the superlative suspense flick "Rosemary's Baby" from 1968, here directs a quickie TV-made sequel, one in which Rosemary Woodhouse (Patty Duke Astin, in for Mia Farrow) is shunted off early--and inexplicably--presumably to help flesh out the more ghoulish aspects of this flaccid story about Satan's son on Earth. Most interesting is the return of Ruth Gordon to her Oscar-winning role as Minnie Castevet (with Ray Milland well-cast as her husband, Roman), but she isn't given much to do--and looks terribly uncomfortable at being involved anyway. This script is strictly low-rent goods, and must have shamed original author Ira Levin (who went on to write his own sequel). Fairly dim and pallid, with poor photography and no suspense or scares whatsoever.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Must see film for film students

3/10
Author: shane k from sydney, NSW, Australia
29 November 2000

This film is a bad film but to gain any nutritional value from it I recommend watching it back to back with Rosemary's Baby.

There is a lot to learn seeing how different directors can draw different performances from the same actors playing the same characters. Observe Minnie Castevet (Ruth Gordon) and the fine work she did in the first film vs the awful rendition in this film.

It is also interesting to see how the same characters were played by different actors. Which leads me to wonder if anyone involved with the sequel were aware of the first film and did any of them watch Rosemary's Baby before making this?

If your interest in films is purely superficial then you would best avoid this one. I have a lot more to say about this film but I really don't want to go there.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

One of the worst sequels I have ever seen!!! spoilers

3/10
Author: lthseldy1 from Norfolk, VA
22 April 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

For a movie that gained so much recognition and appraise this spinoff to "Rosemarys Baby" is one big mistake. It starts off that Andrew/Adrian whatever his name is because he's so confused that he doesn't know who he is anymore runs away from a cult with his mother and soon is kidnapped by a strange lady that ends up taking care of him as if she were his mother. The acting is terrible as Andrew grows up in his twenties and looks terrible with his sunken in face, never ending grin and Dukes of Hazard clothes on looks more like a drunken has been than the son of Satan. In fact thats all he does is drink and falls sloppily all over himself as he tries to come to grips with his past and the last memory of his mother driving away on a bus screaming to him. He finds a friend that seems to be an angel but he's quickly killed off and electricuted in a hillarious scene in which he looks more like a Christmas tree. Andrew gets cought and the cult with the members of the first part test him to see if he's really the Son of Satan. His dumb self fails the test and gets up off the alter glittering with myme makeup and jumps of the stage of a night club and dances like a clown on crack!!! This scene is memorable and well worth a watch. The ending is terrible and somewhat predictable considering how stupid he is in the whole movie. Do not watch this piece of trash or you will loose respect for the first part.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Basic Black and White

2/10
Author: Sample (sampleman411@earthlink.net) from Los Angeles
23 April 2002

With its few touches of surrealism, LWHTRB works as low-grade horror, but as a major follow-up statement to the original, it flounders miserably.

Things begin somewhat promising during the telefilm's opening credits... We see and hear several interesting shots and sounds: The Baby's black crib with the overhanging, inverted cross; the kitchen knife Rosemary carried into the Castevette's apartment and dropped in shock (the utensil is shown sticking out of the hardwood floor); and the emptiness of the Bramford itself, without tenants or furniture (voice-overs can be heard here from the previous film's dialog). Interesting too is the Easter Egg hunt the titular child participates in (the eggs and baskets are also black). Once the story gets rolling, it never really 'rolls'... And what happens to Rosemary when she boards that driverless bus, and is whisked away to God-knows-where?

Patty Duke (a poor replacement for Mia Farrow), Ray Milland and Tina Louise (as the Southwestern Whore who raises the child, "Adrian/Andrew") head this almost-star cast, with Ruth Gordon reprising her "Minnie" role.

Although not a total failure, this sequel-of-sorts should have been released in book form first, then maybe we all could have been a bit better informed... and not left totally in the dark. A fairly recent sequel novel "Son of Rosemary" (1999?) is the legitimate followup by Ira Levin himself.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Look What's Happened...or don't...

3/10
Author: JasparLamarCrabb from Boston, MA
29 March 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Pretty lousy made-for-TV sequel to the Roman Polanski classic. Rosemary's son Adrian has grown up and is embodied by creepy Stephen McHattie. After eliminating Rosemary (here played by Patty Duke) a coven of witches, again led by Minnie & Roman Castevets, preps Satan's son for world domination. It's not really scary and light years less macabre than its predecessor. Instead, writer Anthony Wilson and director Sam O'Steen opt for a Satan-worshiping thriller full of a lot of chanting, plenty of candles, and Ruth Gordon trying to act daffy and nasty at the same time. Gordon's the sole holdover from the original. George Maharis replaces John Cassavetes as Guy and a very hammy Ray Milland plays Roman Castevets, subbing for the late Sidney Blackmer. Newcomer McHattie is the film's only real saving grace. He's very off-kilter and looks really sinister without even doing anything. The music by Charles Bernstein is suitably creepy, but so over-used, it's ends up being intrusive rather than effective. O'Steen, who edited the earlier Polanski masterpiece, shows no flair or subtlety whatsoever.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Look what's happened to a horror masterpiece ...

Author: dbdumonteil
8 February 2006

It was a foolish idea to make a sequel to a film which even today (mainly today) remains the best horror movie ever done.Patty Duke who was a wunderkind when she was a child (remember "the miracle worker")was given a poor part and she was sadly unsupported by the rest of the cast (if my memory serves me well,only Ruth Gordon remained from the original cast).

In order to give this dud a "biblical" feel ,the story is divided into "books" (the book of Rosemary;the book of Adrian ;the book of Andrew).The flick begins with the impressive last lines of Polanski's work (You want me to be HIs mother?/Aren't you His mother?) You do not need anything else when you've seen the 1968 film.

Ira Levin ,who had nothing to do with this made-for-TV sequel,wrote in 1999 "son of Rosemary" which was not as successful as his first novel:the conclusion ,they say,has an "hidden " meaning based on a pun.I've been trying to solve it for months ,to no avail..Anyway Levin should not have written it in the first place.

I finally found it out:nothing to get hung about.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot synopsis Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history