There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

An ambitious remake of Larry Cohen's 1974 killer baby classic. An attractive grad student Lenore(Bijou Phillips)puts her education on hold to have a baby with her architect boyfriend Frank(James Murray). Plans of a beautiful life in a secluded country atmosphere is not going to stand a chance when Lenore has her baby by emergency C-section. Not exactly a bundle of joy; but a natural born killer...an abomination craving to be fed. Lenore knows her baby is prone to savage attacks, but just can't tell her husband of their baby's murderous impulses. A few chills and a couple of squirms in store; but you hardly get to see the monster baby...just what is left over from his ravaging appetite . Others in the cast: Owen Teale, Jack Ellis, Ty Glaser and Raphael Coleman. Little baby Daniel is an unholy terror.

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.

"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...

Even I have to leave comment regarding this movie. We just sat there with our jaws wide open thinking : "Is this for real or is this a student movie from 1st semester". The story is so retarded.My 3 year old nephew could have written a better story. I mean a disformed baby that eats human and animal flesh.....okay....could work....but not if your CGI looks like you bought it over ebay and the screewriter was so high on drugs he just wrote down anything for his next fix. Seriously......we laughed the whole time and the only time we where scared was whas when we accidentally hit the replay button after the rolling credits. If you want to see the possibly worst horror movie ever produced go and rent " it's alive". And don't forget to watch the director's interview. You will be pissing yourself how he actually sells the movie as one of the best of its genre. OMG. Enjoy