It's Alive (2009) Reviews

• Ugh...this remake really stinks

  Argemaluco2010-04-23

  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.

• Tedious and lifeless update of Larry Cohen's "It's Alive".

  HumanoidOfFlesh2010-03-08

  In this tedious and lifeless remake of Larry Cohen's 1974 campy horror classic pregnant Lenore delivers the baby.During the birth all the doctors and nurses in the operating room are viciously killed by the baby.It seems that her child is thirsty for human and animal blood.This "It's Alive" remake is downright silly and absurd.The film fails to generate even the smallest amount of tension.The killings are mediocre and the CGI effects are cheesy and unconvincing.However I enjoyed the performance of Bijou Philips,because her character has just enough depth to convey at least some of the conflicting emotions between a protective mother and someone frightened for their life.4 out of 10.Watch "Grace" or "Baby Blues" instead.

• Stupid Remake

  claudio_carvalho2010-09-06

  The pregnant college student Lenore Harker (Bijou Phillips) leaves the college before the end of the semester to move to the isolated house in Larkspur of her boyfriend, the architect Frank Davis (James Murray). When Lenore is ready to deliver the baby, they drive to the hospital. In the surgery room, the two doctors and the two nurses are found slaughtered and Lenore and the baby are found covered of blood. When Lenore is released, the family returns to Frank's house. Sooner Lenore discovers that her son is a mutant monster hunger for flesh and blood and she protects him hiding his murders. "It's Alive" is a stupid remake of the 1974 movie. The story is too imbecile and predictable without any surprise. There is no fun, no scare, only gore and this film does not deserve spending time writing a review. My vote is three. Title (Brazil): "Anjo Maldito" ("Damned Angel")

• Ten Lines? Really?

  Rathko2010-01-24

  I understand IMDb's ten line minimum for posted reviews, but there are times when ten lines are hard to fill. There are even those times when ten words are pretty tough. This terrible remake of Larry Cohen's minor-classic of 1974 is one such occasion. It is pure tripe and little more really needs to be said beyond a sincere admonition to avoid at all costs. But in the service of a minimum line count, I will add that it is typical Millennium fare - shot in Bulgaria with a multinational hodgepodge of cast and crew, working from an amateurish script for a director with no discernible talent. It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can have so little pride in what they do.

• It's Alive, but boring

  bigdarvick2009-10-15

  This is what bothered me throughout the film...it's location. We as the audience are supposed to believe this story takes place in New Mexico. Unfortunately, we're tipped off at the beginning of the film that it was shot in Bulgaria (where?)with a Bulgarian crew etc. This is when a film should save it's credits for the end of the movie. A few minutes into the flick, we are told via a caption, that the story takes place in New Mexico. Even if my eyes were shut tight during opening credits--I'd know in a heartbeat that the location isn't New Mexico. Instead, what we see is an Alamo style house on the edge of a Bulgarian forest with tall looming trees behind it. Are they kidding? I can understand saving money by shooting in Bulgaria(where?)but how could they expect us (in the USA) to believe that it was New Mexico? Why not say Oregon or some other geographically similar location? Instead, all we see are gray skies and obviously freezing cold outdoor shots with shivering actors. There are so many gaffes in this straight to DVD movie that it is incredibly distracting. We see shots of a pool at night with a pool cover on it, then, in the next shot, it's off. Steam rising out of this pool (cold in Bulgaria...where?) There were very few shots of the baby in it's monster guise and we as the audience, can't understand why no one can see what's up with this kid. The baby's father is never around and when he is, never seems to have a clue that this kid is a little monster. The entire New Mexico police force consisted of 2 cops, both of which made Inspector Clouseau look like Sherlock Holmes. They never ask for back up (they didn't have shoulder radios) even when being attacked by this 10 lb wunderkind. As a matter of fact these police were wearing generic uniforms with no insignia etc. The acting was OK up until the mommy (played by Bijou Philips)started to think she was actually in a film that may get some notice and began to ham it up to the point of it being embarrassing. I think that everyone associated with the remake of this camp classic should've watched the movie "Grace" if they wanted to see a terrifying movie about a demon child. That was a well done film--great dialog and acting, both subtle and scary to the point of making me squirm in my seat and giving me nightmares. Well, It's Alive gave me nightmares too. I dreamt that I wasted a $1.07 at Red Box.