Departamento 7A

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.

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.

This is not enough of a movie to the name, Rosemary baby is probably the best horror movie of all time, this movie is good but is not trying enough.

Its an interesting movie to watch and Garner is an incredible actress and everyone knows that, but the story and the distinct horror presented in here is not solid enough and that's a shame because this movie looks very good.

The other cast does an increible job too, it really feels like a proper prequel of RB but its lacking the suspense, its s shame really it should have been better than this

Its never going to be in the same level as the original but its ok, that's obvious and expected, this was a good try.

Everything about 'Apartment 7A' is a little strange to me. You're making a prequel to a film, 56 years later, that is basically the exact same story, and the best title you could come up with for it was 'Apartment 7A'? Weird, weird.

The movie itself isn't terrible and it isn't great. It falls into a middle ground of nothingness. It does everything competently enough that no one is going be offended by it or bothered enough to complain about it. But it also takes so few risks and chances that no one is ever going to remember it existed pretty soon.

The ending is probably the one thing the film has going for it. I thought it was a very well done scene. If the movie had been willing to do more things like that, it may have been a more memorable experience. 6/10.

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.