It's Alive (2008)

This rather dumb, I even daresay downright imbecilic, flick is a prototypic example of why people righteously hate horror movie remakes. And yet, I started watching it with a very open mindset and actually hoped for a pleasant surprise. Why? Because, for once, it's not just another redundant remake of a bona fide genre classic that totally doesn't need an update version. Like "Nightmare on Elm Street" or "Friday the 13th", for example. Why should they be remade? The original "It's Alive", on the other hand, was an extremely low-budgeted and often clumsily put together obscure cult gem from the early 1970's! That's an ideal film to bring to the attention of wider horror audiences through a remake. Unfortunately, it turned out a total failure of a film, with an insubstantial script, a total lack of tension and atmosphere and embarrassing gore/splatter effects. Bijou Philips gives birth to a baby 'only a mother could love'. The offspring immediately slaughters all the hospital staff in the delivery room and, since it's so exceptionally large and overdeveloped, it also regularly needs extra snacks like psychiatrists, bimbo blond friends and stoner boyfriends. Mommy carefully cleans up the mess junior makes (and doesn't even seem to worry that much) and daddy doesn't seem to have clue of what's going on. The monster baby is mainly kept off-screen, maybe for the best, and all the CGI butchering effects are pathetic. "It's Alive" couldn't even scare an infant. The cute Bijou Philips tries hard to make her character plausible, but the script is simply too idiotic. Larry Cohen, writer/director of the original as well as numerous other cult classics, co-wrote the script of this inferior remake, strangely enough. Perhaps he deliberately sabotaged the whole thing, hoping people would take the effort to check out the original again instead. Good job, Larry, it worked!

It's Alive (2008) ** (out of 4) Remake of Larry Cohen's cult classic has parents Lenore and Frank (Bijou Phillips, James Murray) happy to welcome in a baby boy but there seems to be something wrong. During the C-Section everyone in the delivery room was murdered with the exception of mommy and baby. Soon others start to go missing and you just know it has something to do with the baby. This film, co-written by the original film's director and screenwriter, ended up going straight-to-DVD here in the U.S. and that's pretty understandable because this film is pretty so-so from start to finish. I'd imagine this one here would have been a tough sell as not too many people want to watch a movie about a killer baby and even if they did this film doesn't offer up too much. I think the biggest problem here is the screenplay. For starters, we're suppose to connect with the mother yet the screenplay doesn't do her any favors by making her rather stupid and someone we really can't care for. She begins helping the baby by covering up the murders, which some might say a lot of parents would but at the same time she never stops and thinks about the thing being a killer. Another problem is that all of the violence is kept off screen and we never get to see the baby doing any of the killings. I'm sure this was done so that the film might have a chance of getting released but this makes the film rather bland especially when compared to the original. The screenplay does add a few good touches including keeping the baby normal looking instead of the mutant from the original film. We also get a rather interesting reason as to what's wrong with the kid and why he's doing all the killings. I think it would have helped the film had this been brought up at the start so that we could have known this going through the film and they could have done more with it. I thought both Phillips and Murray were fine in their roles with the supporting players doing fine work as well. No one is going to win an Oscar for their work but it's good enough for this type of film. In the end this movie really doesn't work but it's not a complete failure either. The movie is just here and there's really nothing special or bad about it. I'm not sure who it will appeal to other than those who need to see every horror movie out there or those who just want to compare it to the original.

I do not hate many remakes because they stain the memory of "classic" (or semi-classic) movies.In fact, I am absolutely open to receive them with all the possible objectivity, and I think I could recognize their hits in the minority of cases something good came from them (like for example, The Thing and Dawn of the Dead).But what definitely upsets me from many remakes is the arrogance to think they can improve an old film with the mere thing of "modernize" it, when generally the value from the original film resides on the historical context it was made, portraying the sensibility and style from a time.A clear example is the cult film It's Alive, written and directed by the underrated Larry Cohen in 1974, which had a naughty style which found suspense and human drama in premises which border on the ridiculous.That also applies to other Cohen's films, such as The Stuff, Q and God Told Me To, which ended up being much more entertaining and interesting than I expected.What I mostly liked from It's Alive is that it endorsed its bizarre story with interesting ideas about paternity, scientific responsibility and the then emergent field of the induced fertility.Now, the atrocious remake of that film tries to "update" those ideas, but without a pinch of the ingenuity and talent Cohen showed in the original film.It's Alive does not fulfill at all with its purpose of creating horror, suspense or even interest.90% of this movie is set on a remote house, something which severely limits the wingspan from the story, and instead of the suburban horror from the original film, we have a simple "slasher" formula, with the disposable characters escaping from the murderer by the dark corridors and basements from the house.And even though the murderer is a baby, that circumstance is never used to try something more innovating or at least shocking.Another big problem is the pathetic performances.Nobody shows even the slightest energy or conviction.And as for direction, Josef Rusnak belongs to the school of filmmakers who simply film the scenes from the screenplay, and they then chronologically edit them...but who do not have a single idea on how to tell a story, or how to work with the actors.I do not have much more to say.It's Alive (2008) is an execrable "horror" movie, and one of those films which truly damage the genre.Instead of watching this atrocity, I recommend you to see the very entertaining original film.

The premise of the movie is really out there. Of course it's supposed to be over the top and even the explanation you get somewhere in the movie, why this is all happening is so crazy, that you can't help yourself but laugh about it.Having said that, the sole and main reason, you are going to watch this, is the "bloody mess" it delivers (no pun intended). And it delivers on that premise, so if you are splatter fan, than you can pretty much enjoy this. Not that much going on in the acting category and or the story department. Based on a Cohen movie (which I haven't seen), it's pretty much everything you can expect from it.