Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Stephan Hammond It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

mark.waltz Every time somebody screamed out "Adrian!" in this, I wanted to scream it back in my Sylvester Stallone voice, finding it ironic that this came out the same year as "Rocky". There is nothing decent in this follow-up to the 1968 cult classic that surely warranted a sequel, but this was obviously rushed out to grab on the supernatural atmosphere taking over Hollywood with the same year's "The Omen". Even the worst of that series was better than this film, cast with care but written with crayon. Mia Farrow wisely passed on repeating her role as Rosemary, but poor Patty Duke gets really nothing noteworthy to do as she briefly takes on the role of the woman raped by Satan and the mother of his child. Ruth Gordon is the sole returnee from "Rosemary's Baby", but other than that distinctive voice, there is no resemblance in her character of Minnie Castavette. In the original film for which she deservedly won the Oscar, Gordon was deliciously passive/aggressive in her manipulations, charming even if the evil was obvious. Ray Milland steps into the role of her husband, while Tina Louise has a major supporting role as the woman who steps in to raise Andrew/Adrian (Stephen McHattie) when Rosemary is dealt with by the Satanic cult.So yes, if this has a curio factor for those who wanted to see what had happened to the baby with the evil eyes, it also has it for that cast. Gordon has been turned into an obnoxious shrew, heard more than seen, and I can't believe that even Satan would put up with her caterwauling even if she is the means to an evil end. Louise does have the most interesting role, aiding Duke in a time of crisis which means her taking over his growing up, but not enough time is given for her to really develop her character. McHattie, unlike the aging Damian in "The Omen" series, isn't really believable in his horror over his destiny, and is perhaps the weakest written character in this television film. Lots of time is spent on his bad boy image, voice-overs by Gordon and Milland calling out to him in Satan's name, and a few psychedelic moments where McHattie gets more sinister as a part of the counter-culture a major part of society in the 1970's. The script is horribly developed and nothing outside of some ridiculous dialog and idiotic situations is present to really keep interest. Coming here, I was not surprised to see the low rating: I just simply expected it to be even lower, even if the reviews of the film were exactly as expected.

JasparLamarCrabb 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.

sampleman411-1 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.

DeadGene I kept watching it because it seemed like the plot was going somewhere. When it ambiguously got there I was very disappointed. I'm going to tell you what really happened in the next sentence. But maybe I won't. Maybe I'll just imply something will happen. The writers lacked any imagination. This is not even a "B" movie - it's a made for TV "B" movie.