It's Alive (2008)

Horrorphile

follow this blog

1040 followers

3571 daily readers

rank of 1

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

It's Alive (2008)

September 15th 2010 23:52

It was a 70s B-movie shocker with a vague social commentary and dodgy special effects. Surely it would make for a great remake. Well, the DVD cover art looked great, and Bijou Phillips was in the lead. I’ve actually never seen the original It’s Alive (1974), written and directed by Larry Cohen, but I know enough about it, and I’ve seen enough stills to know that it’s a essentially a ludicrously far-fetched nightmare movie. So what was I thinking? I was kidding myself if I thought a remake would work. But hell, it worked for Piranha (2010). Only Alexandre Aja didn’t take himself too seriously, and he had a great team and cast working for him. It’s Alive (2008) takes itself way too seriously, and that’s the first fatal flaw.

Bijou Phillips as Lenore closes her eyes and hopes the movie will go away

The second flaw is the dodgy-as-hell special effects. I’ve not such appalling CGI work in a mainstream horror movie in awhile, but more on that later. The third flaw is the dreadful screenplay; vacuous and boring, despite Cohen being given a co-writing credit (is that because his original screenplay was used, or they hired him to help write the remake?) The fourth and final flawed straw that broke the baby’s back, so to speak, is the risible direction. Josef Rusnak has no idea about how to make a movie scary, or at least tense, and the death scenes were down right laughable. Except this wasn’t a comedy.

It's Alive (2008) Raphael Coleman and James Murray

Young nephew Chris (Raphael Coleman) with Frank (James Murray)

I’m not going to continue to make any more references to the original since I can’t make a genuinely informed comparison, apart from the curious fact that the original had a young Rick Baker on board to design the mutant baby (essentially a clawed hand and a baby mask his wife wore!) There is no cool animatronic work to be found in the remake. The mutant baby, the result of toxic miscarriage pills taken by young mother Lenore (Bijou Phillips) after being encouraged by her university roommate Marnie (Ty Glaser) who insists she lose the baby so she can finish her degree, is almost never seen in full for the entire picture. When it is shown it is a blurry CGIed baby, and not even in close-up; a truly abysmal effort. The only close-up shot is near the very end, and the fanged infant looks about as scary as a killer doll (‘cept Chucky was a lot more menacing).

That's one messy, difficult birth

In order to make a remake of It’s Alive the realisation and execution of the murderous, predatory baby is the most important part of the movie. And therein lies the Rub. You either use an animatronic baby, and that’s gonna look dodgy, or you use state-of-the-art CGI, and that will probably still look dodgy. The remake opts for the CGI, but doesn’t have the budget or expertise to even make it look half-convincing. Instead the baby is never seen, unless in shadow. The rest of the time it’s an empty basinet, an uninspired baby POV shot, or a little CGI-hand with claws. As for the gore effects, there’s virtually none; just lots of unconvincing CGI blood splashed around. Oh hang on, there’s an unintentionally amusing baby’s hand through the back of the head and out the mouth “gag”.

Hmmm, could that be blood on the window?

The sheer ridiculousness of the premise is brought to the fore because the movie takes itself seriously. Whilst the original also did this, at least it possessed an underlying grindhouse corniness that kept the movie buoyant (oops, sorry, another comparison). How on Earth is the audience meant to react when the mother casually accepts that her baby is a ravenous infantile beast, bringing ravaged rats, birds, and rabbits into the house? And when the baby inevitably starts to tear apart the unfortunate humans who wander into the household or who leave the car doors unlocked the mother has a brief moment of grief then stashes the bodies in the cellar, but refuses to tell her husband Frank (James Murray). Finally, right near movie’s end, she slips into a shocked catatonia, only to snap out of it when she realises her loved one (the baby, that is, not the husband) is no longer in the house because Frank has trapped it in a steel drum and is dragging it into the adjacent woods.

Grrrr! It's baby Daniel!

Owen Teale as Lt. Perkins

The Raspberry Award for worst acting of the year (well, 2008) has to go to Owen Teale as Lt. Perkins; the cop who suspects Lenore ain’t being straight up about her memories of the delivery room massacre (the first scene that indicated the movie was going to be a turkey). The rest of the cast get by with mediocre effort. The “New Mexico” setting and homestead was attractive, until I discovered the production was yet another of those Hollywood cheapies shot in Bulgaria with an entirely Bulgarian crew. I have yet to see an off-Hollywood production that is good. The best thing about the remake of It’s Alive is the DVD cover art, and it’s one of the most striking I’ve seen all year. More creative thought went into that than the movie, by a long shot. I was expecting a set-up for a sequel, since the original had two, but mercifully it all went up in a blaze, and with the box-office receipts deep in the red, I strongly doubt (and hope to hell) that there’ll be a remake of It Lives Again (1974). I’m waiting to see if Grace (2009) will be the saving killer baby grace.

Here’s the trailer:

137

Vote

subscribe to this blog

follow this blog on Orble

start your own blog

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: movie reviews

Related Posts:

Relate This Post

[ Previous - Survival of the Dead ]

[ Next - Triangle ]

Comments

8 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by David O'Connell

September 16th 2010 06:07

20/20 Filmsight
Screen Fanatic

Grace definitely couldn't be worse than this by the sounds of it Bryn!
Was The Machinist an off-Hollywood film? Now that's one I need to fork out again.

For some strange reason whenever I hear the title It's Alive a certain image is conjured up in my mind - then I realise the film I'm thinking of is actually Basket Case which traumatised the hell out of me as a kid. (I think I had a fear of ending up with a brother like that!

Comment by Bryn

September 16th 2010 06:31

Horrorphile

David, actually I've not read good things about Grace either, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed. The Machinist may well have been. Now there's a flick I need to review! Yes, Basket Case. That's ripe for re-plucking! But essentially runs into the same problems as It's Alive; trying to make the mutant brother look convincing. I doubt I'd be able to write anything good about the original Basket Case ... I'd preferred the equally twisted Brain Damage from Hennelotter.

Comment by ShaunK

September 16th 2010 11:49

Screen Adventure

hehe - you know whats funny, this is the second time I've seen a film in the shops and thought to my self, "this looks interesting, maybe I should get it", tempted specifically by the cover - then thought "wait and see if Bryn reviews it", once again you came through Bryn, being on the cutting edge of my random thought patterns which lead me to impulse buying.

looks like I can avoid this one after all....

Thanks for the tip

Comment by JohnDoe

September 16th 2010 21:20

Film & TV on DVD

I enjoyed the unique original too much to give this a chance...Grace on the other hand I have heard good things.

Comment by JMD

September 16th 2010 23:23

And the ending was just as bad. And to think they delayed releasing this. At least the original had that creepy 70s horror feel to it. All these missed opportunities with the remake craze. I completely forgot that I have seen Grace. The last act had some gore and violent scenes but not enough to make up for the bad script and boring acting. You wont miss much if you skip these two movies.

Comment by Bryn

September 17th 2010 00:52

Horrorphile

JMD, cheers mate ... I know what you're saying. Creepy 70s ... missed opportunities ...

Comment by Anonymous

January 24th 2011 13:03

I ACTUALLY enjoy movies where you dont see everything and you get to use your imagination. Psychological is more terrifying than anything hollywood can dream up.

When left to my own devices i scare myself more than any other move ever has. Maybe that is what they were going for with this movie, but failed miserably.

Although i think movie audiences have changed, they want instant gratification, they want everything now.

Used to be you sat through a movie to see the killer at the end, now they want it in the first 4 minutes of the movie.

Movies are not what they used to be, but then again neither are the audiences.