Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Paul Magne Haakonsen I haven't seen the original movie on which this 2008 version is based, so this review is solely based on having seen the 2008 version only.First of all, I must say that I found the story to be laughable at best. Come on, an infant killing animals and full-grown people? It was just so far out there and it was nowhere near making any sense in a logical way at all. And that really brought down the movie a couple of notches for me, because it was so hard to buy into the storyline.That being said, then on the other hand, the movie was quite nicely shot and well put together. So there is a great sense of production value to weigh up for the lousy storyline.And the performances were also helping to carry the movie along, as Bijou Phillips (playing Lenore) and James Murray (playing Frank) were doing good jobs with their characters and helping to bring them to life on the screen.Sadly, though, that wasn't enough to make the movie stay afloat. For a horror movie, there was a horrible lack of frights, scary moments or spooky elements. It was basically just a couple of hints here and there as to the killing and the mayhem, through the usage of visual techniques with the camera and sound effects. You didn't really get to see anything to implicate that it was actually Daniel who was doing it. I am sure that would have worked back in 1974 during the original movie, but not in 2008.So despite it being a nicely shot movie, the storyline really killed the experience for me, and I found the movie to be less than average. Personally, I just found the storyline about an infant that kills too laughable and implausible.I am sure that if you are a fan of either Bijou Phillips or James Murray then you might actually get some worth out of this movie. But if you are watching it with the intent of watching a good horror movie, like I did, you are perhaps better off with something else.I am giving "It's Alive" a 4/10 rating because of the acting and the way the movie was shot and edited. The storyline itself is the anchor that is causing this movie to drown.

Coventry 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!

Michael_Elliott 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.

homecoming8 "It's Alive" is a remake of the 70's classic by Larry Cohen (which was executive producer on this one). It even spawned 2 more sequels, "It Lives Again" and "Island Of The Alive". I saw those movies once and curious what the remake would be like. Well it is bad, really bad. It starts of great with a massacre during the birth (although it is not actually shown) but the story goes rapidly downhill from than on. It also makes no sense at all, especially the actions of the mother after she discovers that there is something seriously evil about her baby. (the baby kills a pigeon and she acts like the whole thing didn't happen and is supposed to be normal ??) The killings are rather stupid, there is even a laughably CGI effect of the baby's little arm crushing to a victim's head. Very cheaply done. The baby is not really shown (very little budget on special effects). Maybe they tried it but it was so bad that they actually cut it out before theatrical release. I saw the so-called UNRATED version, no idea what had to be cut out for the theatrical version. Could not have been much...