Apartment 7A

Serving as a prequel to Rosemary's Baby, Apartment 7A is an unnecessary outing that does create intrigue due to its connection to the 1968 horror classic but is unable to sustain it for long despite featuring a similar premise. Slow, boring & forgettable for the most part, the only element that works in its favour is the neat production design and although the cast tries to capture the nuances of the reprising characters, the performances aren't compelling enough. It is devoid of the escalating paranoia that the original captured so well, is tediously paced from start to finish, and goes full cringe in its final moments to finish as yet another dull, derivative & disappointing attempt at reviving an existing classic.

"Apartment 7A" is a 2024 psychological thriller that serves as a prequel to the iconic horror film "Rosemary's Baby." It follows Terry Gionoffrio, an aspiring actress grappling with a career-ending injury, as she moves into the infamous Bramford building.

What Works: * Strong Performances: Julia Garner delivers a compelling performance as Terry, capturing her vulnerability and growing paranoia convincingly. Dianne Wiest and Kevin McNally, as the unsettling Castevets, are suitably eerie and unsettling.

* Atmospheric Setting: The film effectively recreates the eerie ambiance of the Bramford building, with its claustrophobic corridors and unsettling undertones.

What Could Be Better: * Pacing Issues: The first half of the film feels slow-paced, struggling to build suspense and tension effectively.

* Lack of Innovation: While it pays homage to the original, "Apartment 7A" doesn't offer much new to the table. It relies heavily on familiar tropes and fails to truly capitalize on its chilling premise.

* Uneven Horror Elements: The film struggles to blend its horror elements seamlessly. Some scenes are genuinely unsettling, while others feel forced or underwhelming.

Overall: "Apartment 7A" is a decent watch for fans of "Rosemary's Baby" who are curious about the backstory. However, it ultimately fails to reach the chilling heights of its predecessor. While the performances are strong and the atmosphere is suitably eerie, the film suffers from pacing issues and a lack of originality.

Recommendation: Rent or stream it if you're a fan of the original and enjoy psychological thrillers.

Disclaimer: This is just one perspective, and individual opinions may vary.

Director Natalie Erika James embarks on a mission to give us a prequel that can at least match Roman Polanski's 1968 classic, and the truth is that we're left with a film with a great leading lady, but one that falls a few steps short of achieving the milestone of matching the original.

It has good ideas at its core, especially the dreamlike moments of its protagonist that resemble that atmosphere of 1968, but as we get deeper into the story we lose the strength that would lead us to a more satisfying horror impact, and also taking into account that it plays quite a bit with references to Rosemary's Baby in several parts.

What it does excel at is in presenting us with a great protagonist who is allowed to shine in a consecrating way, a Julia Garner who makes that leap to demonstrate what a great actress she is and the star she becomes with each job. On this occasion, she takes on her character with all the elegance, talent and first-class charisma, she makes the film her own and in turn the film works on the strength that the actress delivers in her moments, to reach a final climax where she is totally consecrated as the star of the show. The actress manages to transmit this personal drama in a very forceful way, where one can highlight as a great strength the depth and personality of a character with whom you connect at all times.

When we get into the substance that the film offers us, it is here where we find the lowest points of the proposal, and that is that we are left with a script that although it clearly addresses personal drama, when it must reach the moment of terror it lacks the necessary intensity to give us symbolic moments or moments of more enjoyment that allow the film to stand out more strongly as an excellent horror film, its strength only allows it to be a correct, but passive way of confronting sects, the devil and a prequel to a classic of the genre.

In any case, Apartment 7A works as a decent movie that doesn't waste time, largely due to its protagonist and a rather interesting direction. It may fall short in intentions and in more challenging ideas, but it fulfills its role as a movie that goes straight to platforms and without greater ambitions than to provide a moment of entertainment and that honestly does achieve this in several passages where it intelligently provides an ending to the journey that is the most rewarding of the entire film.

Apartment 7A" is surprisingly a very strong film. The storyline stays closely aligned with the original, and the cinematography, both inside and outside the apartment, evokes strong memories of the original masterpiece.

The performances are outstanding, particularly from Dianne Wiest and Kevin McNally, who excel in their roles as the Castevets. The film features thoughtful nods to Rosemary's Baby throughout, and as a prequel, the plot is well-crafted and cohesive.

One of the highest compliments I can offer is that Apartment 7A left me eager to immediately revisit Rosemary's Baby. Together, they would make a fantastic double feature.

Okay. So I liked the period part of this.

And did I remember before I started watching this that it was a prequel to Ira Levin's novel/Roman Polanski's film? No. Didn't dawn on me until I said to myself, "Self, there's Dianne Wiest! And she's doing a Ruth Gordon impression? Oh, duh. This is that Rosemary's Baby cash grab that was put into production because Satanic pregnancies are all the rage in this post-Dobbs landscape." I think this is the 8th devil fetus movie this year alone. But here we are.

I like Dianne Wiest. I don't think Julie Garner was horrible. But this seemed more like a rehash of the Mia Farrow classic - with some aspects a scene-for-scene matchup. Yeah, it's with a single unwed mom set in the pre-Roe era. I mean that is the film's entire premise and reason for existing.

But the film doesn't expand on the Leviniverse beyond saying that things at the Bramford go back before the Woodhouses moved in.

Also, I don't get why they didn't just get Josh Groban for the Josh Groban guy. The did-get guy was easy to look at but the entire time I couldn't stop thinking he was supposed to be Josh Groban.

The movie is watchable. Nothing groundbreaking, nothing must-see, nothing revelatory narrative-wise. It's fine. I did find the ending somewhat pleasant while odd but entirely foreseeable.