MovieChat Forums > It's Alive (1974) Discussion > This movie definately needs a remake.

This movie definately needs a remake.

posted 18 years ago by jayburks
32 replies | jump to latest

I just saw this movie and was thinking that it was in desperate need of a remake. I hate remakes but I think this is a good example of a movie improving with new technology and an upgraded script.

The pacing of this movie was INCREADIBLY SLOOOOOOOOOW. Pick up the pace just a little bit and you've already improved this movie. For instance, the beginning of the film it takes WAY too long for the delivery. You would've thought they were going to get a haircut, not deliver a baby.

I hate to admit this but I think the baby does need to be CGI. The puppet was ok for 1974 but it was about as animated as a baby doll. The idea of keeping the baby in the shadows would be perfect. The problem with CGI is not so much the cartoonish aspect of it which is a bit of a problem. But most CGI movies focus too much on the CGI characters and you see so much of it, that you start watching the CGI character and not the film, it sticks out. Probably because the creators and directors are proud of their work and want to show it off, but then it becomes a distraction. Before, special effects were quick shots and you usually didn't see a whole lot of the monster because if you did, it looked fake, this concept worked beautifully because it made the monsters more mysterious and creepy.

Hopefully they won't ruin it by hiring 20 something perfect looking actors as the leads. Part of what made this believable was the family looked like any normal everyday family, not a family of supermodels!

Just my 2cents.

[–] YankeeDood 18 years ago

I agree, especially on the latter part. They also need to avoid being too politically correct, which always messes up a remake.

-L31

[–] Dragontien 18 years ago

There is going to be a remake, all I know is that Bijou Phillips plays the mother of the baby. I read it in an interview in Wizard magazine.

soldier #32 heavy muscle
The Warriors

[–] diezman 18 years ago

I remember being freaked out by the premise of the movie when I was a kid in the 70s. I rented it in the 80s and thought the movie sucked.

This is the kind of movie that can definitely use a makeover!

[–] athomas1 17 years ago

They should make it a hard R, like they did Texas Chainsaw and show the birth in full graphic detail. Screw the censors.

[–] dvdtrkr 17 years ago

Hopefully Cohen will make it creepier this round. I had a feeling with the reissues that he was planning to do something with this movie, but there's still nothing in imdb.com that anything was done regarding the remake.

[–] guruatomik 16 years ago

There is now.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1172060/

[–] vidville-69614 9 years ago

There, are you all happy now?

[–] Takeshi-K 8 years ago

No. It sucked. And I didn't want one. Which really sucks.

[–] Boutros_Boutros_Sirhan_Sirhan 17 years ago

Are you kidding me? This film was a great example of using story and beleivable characters to enhance the scares, and the limited use of the puppet and suit made it that much scarier with the limited time we saw the baby. So basically you want just another fast paced, story lacking, action and jump scares based modern horror flick using a cgi enemy that looks infinitely less real and tactile than practical fx that worked fine in the first place if not perfect 100% of the time.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Fargo_North 17 years ago

Agreed, purevegetarianman, agreed. What about the planned (and completely pointless) remakes of "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Birds"? There is no way either of these remakes can hope to be as great as these Classics are. If it ain't broke DON'T fix it!

...and your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!!

[–] FRANKDRAFTING 17 years ago

I feel this film is broke and needs to be fixed. While I liked the limited time the baby spent on screen, the constant, 'let's look under the covers and see that it's not there' is silly and insults the audiences intelligence. We know it's not going to be there. That's the way the entire film went. These 1970 films all had a made for tv feel and a remake could be more suspensful, gorier, at certain times, and the script could be much more intelligent. The sets were cheap and had that 'back-lot junk' feel to it and the actors were all ok, at best. The premise of the movie is great but a new born baby wandering all over southern California? Even at my best suspension of disbelief, I can't get into that concept. I know, I know it's all make believe, but this movie just didn't do it for me. I think a remake would do this story a great deal of good, but, hey, tht's just my opinion.

[–] dalldorfw 9 years ago

"remake could be more suspensful, gorier, at certain times, and the script could be much more intelligent."

There was already a remake and it had no suspense and little intelligence. It may have been gorier but I don't remember because it was very forgettable. Again, if it an't broke...

[–] dalldorfw 11 years ago

"Are you kidding me? This film was a great example of using story and beleivable characters to enhance the scares, and the limited use of the puppet and suit made it that much scarier with the limited time we saw the baby. So basically you want just another fast paced, story lacking, action and jump scares based modern horror flick using a cgi enemy that looks infinitely less real and tactile than practical fx that worked fine in the first place if not perfect 100% of the time."

This. Plus they did remake it and the remake sucked. Shocking, I know as most of the remakes that have been coming out every five minutes are absolute masterpieces, but somehow, this one just didn't work. Looks like the original didn't need to be "fixed" after all.

[–] brodiebruce_405 16 years ago

Too slow?

In olden times, people had attention spans and suspense was a wonderful thing. Now, when people don't, we have films like The Matrix, Wanted and anything by Michael Bay or Tony Scott. Wham, bam, quick cut, "what-the-*beep*-was-that-and-was-it-good-I-can't-remember" 'action'.

Seriously, shut up.

The English will not be pushed around much longer...

[–] smerd_70 16 years ago

"The pacing of this movie was INCREADIBLY SLOOOOOOOOOW."

The pacing of films like It's Alive getting called "INCREDIBLY SLOOOOOOOOOW." is why the majority of modern Hollywood horror films focus more on fast, fast, fast, quick cuts, more action, minus actually taking the time to get to know the characters and building suspense.

I collect dead pigeons then I press them between the pages of a book.

[–] Nerdgasm 14 years ago

I don't think the person is stupid or "too modernized" for disliking this movie
it has an interesting premise
but it's not a good movie
no, not at all.
It had potential. People should learn from David Cronenberg; remake old movies that were mediocre but had potential but make it your own.

http://www.youtube.com/chaztr0n

[–] jwpeel-1 16 years ago

...and you are desperately and incredibly in need opf a spellchecker. Definitely (Note that all words here are spelled correctly!)

The picture was not that good to begin with, and enough with the remakes already. Most of them are the pits!

[–] BigPoppaMerf 15 years ago

Actually you misspelled "of", genius.

[–] frozenotter 15 years ago

All words are spelled correctly! In that case, can you tell me what the word "opf" means?

[–] boxerito3000 15 years ago

there is a remake ad it sucks.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] youvegotyale 15 years ago

2008

http://imdb.com/title/tt1172060/

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]