It's Alive

"I would advise anybody who likes my film to cross the street and avoid seeing the new enchilada." - Larry Cohen

Nothing instills confidence in a remake more than the original filmmaker bashing the new version. Grad student Lenore Harker (Bijou Phillips) quits school in order to have her baby and live with her beau Frank Davis (James Murray) in an isolated house. Complications happen when she goes into labor at the six month mark and her doc mentions the baby has nearly doubled in size in just a few short months. Before you can scream, "It's alive!" the baby has massacred everyone except mom in the delivery room and the cops are on the case.

By no design of my own, this is the fourth film I've seen from Millennium Films in just over a week. I had no idea their remake game was so strong. And, like the earlier viewings, it completely fails to capture the shock value of the original or even update it appropriately. If there is any concept that could have thrived in a remake, it is this one as we've seen leaps in technology in the 25 years between the two films. According to the interview the above quote was taken from, Cohen supplied the filmmakers with an updated script for a new take on his 1974 horror film. Instead of heeding his advice, they said, "We're good" and rewrote it to make this dull take on the mutant baby classic. It is a total slog as Lenore slowly discovers her baby Daniel is a killer (thanks to some Plan B pills she took) as he quickly makes his way up the food chain from birds to cats to humans. My favorite bit is where a pushy police psychologist is attacked in his car. As he fastens his seatbelt, he goes "Ow!" and then raises up his hand to reveal three of his fingers have been bitten off. Ow? OW!? That was all you could muster when losing three of your left hand's digits? Like Day of the Dead (2008), Millennium shot this in Bulgaria and tried to pass it off as the United States. This time it is New Mexico and it results again in their horrid dubbing of the supporting cast (in addition to the terrible baby voice that Phillips has). Scott Coulter's Worldwide FX also provides the horrible digital baby and fake-looking blood and it is no match for Rick Baker's early creation. A dumb move in a series of dumb moves. How dumb are these filmmakers? They don't even have the brains to recreate the iconic "monster claw coming out of a baby cradle" artwork. I will give the film credit for a super downer ending, but by that point I had stopped caring.

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.

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.

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!

I'l be very brief. Whoever is responsible for the screenplay of this atrocity should revise everything they know about the art of writing and take a few lessons in psychology (although I doubt that it would help) and all those who agreed to take part (in any sort of way) in the production of this feature are either intellectually challenged in a desperately tragic way or they are simply faced with minimum alternatives, if any altogether (they have my condolences in the latter occasion).

This crap (won't even call it a movie) defies human logic and it offends every intellectual progress achieved by the human kind. I simply wish that IMDb executives would implement a system of negative scoring. I believe my comment should be sufficiently emphatic even for the most sceptic reader.