When you remake a classic, the goal should be to blow your audience away not barely make a ripple. As one of many viewers of the original, I was pretty open minded, an opportunity to see one of my favorite horror novels brought to the screen again and looking forward to seeing how they could improve on perfection (okay, maybe I wasn't so open minded).

Hats off to the locale. A great choice Paris, urbane and dark, however the apartment building was nowhere near as creepy as The Dakota. The acting was believable with a good looking cast and at first held a lot of promise. Instead of eccentric senior folks, they are replaced by well dressed, well connected and attractive AARP members.

One of my main criticisms of this version is the excessive use of blood and guts. I recently read an interview with Zoe Saldana, who plays Rosemary Woodhouse and she said for today's audience they needed to make it bloody. Really? Gratuitous violence just like gratuitous sex feels false and detracts. How wonderful that the original didn't rely on jump scares(not found here but such a staple in modern horror) and horrific images. Nothing is more scary than the imagination.

Is this the worst remake ever? No, not by any means. It was entertaining though a bit long. The main difference between this and the original is that in the original I didn't want it to end; in this version I couldn't wait for it to end.

Remaking one of the great films (not just horror) of all time is not a very good idea, and almost certainly was going to be met with resistance and negative feedback and groans of lack of imagination nowadays. But "Rosemary's Baby" does present some interest as a modern updated take on the original 60's set story.

How does the story and Rosemary's actions change in the modern world? What with the internet and cell phones and instant information, and maybe most importantly, a strong independent "modern" woman. The casting of Zoe Saldana as Rosemary, famous for her tough as nails action heroines she's been known to play, would seem to suggest this.

None of this means anything however. The movie does open with Rosemary chasing down a burglar, resulting in a cop calling her brave and reckless, suggesting he needs more cops like her. Yet this leads nowhere. Never again does Rosemary do anything rash or without someone's permission. If the movie were to suggest that her independence had been taken from her, then yes maybe that would be interesting but that's not what's here.

Instead we get a basic retread, expanded upon here and with some added gore there, with a fresh city that really amounts to nothing other than some French accents. Rosemary doesn't every really feel out of place here, except one time near the beginning when she suggest that she can't stay at a party because everyone is speaking French. But then everyone speaks English and that's that. Everything is plot contrivance without any new raison d'etre (I had to). Much like the recent wasted attempt at a "Carrie" remake...

I wanted to give this a chance since I loved the original Roman Polanski movie so much. And I was open minded to a change in setting from New York to Paris - after all it's no point making a shot for shot remake of a perfect movie. But comparing this with the original this version is a travesty. There are so many changes that aren't for the better, they are for the worse.

The casting is bad. Zoe Saldana doesn't have the angelic wide eyed innocence of Mia Farrow. Jason Isaacs as Roman Castavets looks too obviously sinister from the get go, he is just too obvious. Patrick J Adams tries but isn't shifty enough. Carole Bouquet is the best of the lot she is sophisticatedly sinister but without the motherly benign façade that Ruth Gordon had her character doesn't work either.

The changes in the story were disastrous. Revealing Guy's collusion with the Castavets and the real nature of the Castavets so early on takes away all the tension that was in the original. The dialog isn't as good especially when they departed from the original. It lacks subtlety. Having such gory ends for the victims doesn't take it into the 21st Century - rather it spoils the realistic base which made the original so much more chilling. In the original going blind was enough. Didn't have to have a throat slashing thing. The climax at the end when she finds her baby just falls flat especially where she wanted to kill it.

It's a painful watch for fans of the original. If you look on it as a "Rosemary's Baby 2 - Paris" maybe you can bear it. Just be prepared the horror is in how bad the movie is compared to the original.