It's Alive

Ultrasound won't detect any acting talent in this abysmal re-telling of a film that wasn't very good to begin with. Larry Cohen's original 1974 schlock-fest had gallons of artificial blood, a campy story and one very bad looking baby puppet. This modernized version offers Bulgaria as an unconvincing stand-in for New Mexico, gallons of artificial blood and cheesy looking CGI effects. And does it have to take itself so serious? Strictly for those who consider enduring eighty-three minutes of labor pains any fun. Larry Cohen's movie spawned two sequels (1978, 1987). Whatever is in the works for this afterbirth - let's hope for abortion.

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 takes a lot for a movie to make me actually angry. And I don't just mean in a "holy crap, that was awful" kind of way. I mean for it to make me sit there with a face full of scowl for the whole thing. Yet It's Alive has accomplished that. To be fair, I should have known what I was getting into. There are very few homicidal baby movies that have ever been executed to even an acceptable degree.

There's really not much going on here. A girl takes a break from college to have a baby and weird stuff starts happening. Now this might be forgivable if...say...mommy and daddy had no clue what was going on. But mom knows damn well and seems totally cool with it. I understand most parents will forgive their children just about anything, but there's got to be a limit. So Bijou Phillips, who needs to pick a new, less ridiculous name, spend the whole movie ignoring the fact that her baby is evil incarnate and even enabling it from time to time. This (sort of) gets explained about 3/4 of the way through, but it's such an awful explanation and the movie so horrible that by that time you won't care.

There is nothing redeemable here. The acting is capable but still somehow annoying. The kill scenes are fun in an over the too kind of way, but there's not nearly enough of them to justify the rest of this trash. Ummm...they didn't kill any puppies? Is that something you can applaud a movie for? Seriously, I have trouble thinking of a single good thing to say about this film. I'm not going to whine about it being the worst movie ever, but I absolutely hated it it.

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.

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.