It's Alive

1974 "There's only one thing wrong with the Davis baby..."
5.8| 1h31m| PG| en
Details

Lenore and Frank Davis are about to have their second child. As Lenore gives birth, the newborn vanishes and leaves behind five dead bodies. It's up to the police and Frank to figure out where their mutated child has gone.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much
MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting
Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.
Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.
evanston_dad There are some interesting and even somewhat ambitious (for its genre) ideas buried in the screenplay for "It's Alive," a mutant killer baby movie from 1974, but everything about the film is so poorly executed that the ideas don't get a chance to go anywhere.Those ideas include the anxiety and loss of control that come with having a newborn baby; the disappointment parents can feel when their children don't live up to their own preconceived expectations; the rift that children can create between husbands and wives; and the general responsibility husbands and fathers feel to "fix" whatever is wrong with their families. The film reminded me a tiny bit of David Lynch's "Eraserhead": in both, a literal monster exists as a stand in for all of the psychological angst that comes with bringing a child into the world. But "It's Alive" is very poorly directed, so it's not at all scary, and, though it elicits a chuckle once in a while for how stupid it is, it's not really bad enough to land into "so bad it's good" territory either. Mostly, the audience spends its time trying to get a glimpse of this killer baby, which it never really sees in any detail (probably a wise decision on the part of the filmmakers).Grade: C-
disinterested_spectator In movies that have a pro-life message, like "Knocked Up" (2007) or "Juno" (2007), a woman gets pregnant and the possibility of abortion is contemplated but ultimately decided against. Then the woman has the baby, and everything turns out for the best. In movies that have a pro- choice message, like "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" (1982) or "Obvious Child" (2014), a women gets pregnant, has an abortion, and everything turns out for the best. "It's Alive," however, does not merely have a pro-choice message. It has a pro-abortion message, which is to say the movie is anti-baby. A woman gets pregnant and the possibility of abortion is contemplated but ultimately decided against. Then the woman has the baby, and it is a monster.No sooner does the horrible creature exit the birth canal than it kills every doctor and nurse in the delivery room. It escapes from the hospital and starts killing everyone it meets. At one crime scene, a detective mentions that his wife is upset because she is eight months pregnant, and his being on the case bothers her, especially since she lost their first baby. To this the other detective, who is obviously lacking in tact, says that people who don't have children don't know how lucky they are.Lenore, the woman who has the baby-monster, was taking birth control pills for thirty-one months before she got pregnant, and the suggestion is made that the pills were what caused the baby to develop into a monster. This might seem to be a disconnect. How can the movie be both pro-abortion and anti-birth control at the same time?The answer is that it is not birth control that is evil, but rather it is the pharmaceutical company that manufactured the pill. The company representative is worried about a possible lawsuit, and he convinces Lenore's doctor that he too may be in jeopardy, and therefore it would be better if the baby-monster is killed so that it cannot be studied for medical purposes, which might reveal the company's and the doctor's culpability.Frank, Lenore's husband, comments that when he saw the movie "Frankenstein," he thought the monster's name was Frankenstein, but when he read the book, he realized that was the doctor's name. In other words, it was not the monster of that book who was the cause of all the evil, but the doctor. And that is the case with this movie: the baby may be the monster, but the doctor who created the monster is the villain.The baby-monster instinctively tries to make its way back to its parents. Lenore, and eventually Frank too, come to love the baby-monster, and they want to keep it and raise it. People that are pro-life often argue that pregnant women that decide not to have an abortion and have the baby instead will come to love it, as if love were the ultimate justification. But, as this movie points out, love is not an unqualified good. In fact, sometimes love is just wrong. In such cases, love is something we are better off without. So, the fact that a woman will love the baby if she has it does not mean she would not be better off having an abortion.Anyway, Frank tries to escape with the baby-monster to keep the police from killing it, and then, when surrounded, tries to talk them into letting it live. But when that fails, he throws the baby at the evil doctor. When the police let loose with a fusillade of bullets directed at the baby-monster, they end up killing the doctor too.In the last scene, the police detective gets word that another woman has had a baby-monster. See what happens when you don't get that abortion.
LeonLouisRicci An Important Entry in the Seventies Low-Budget Horror Category, This Tale of a "Monster" Baby has Gained Cult Status Justifiably. It has Enough Wit to Set "It" Apart from the Usual Mindless Movies of "Its" Clan.Writer/Director/Producer Larry Cohen, Still Working in the Modern Era Got His Start With This Surprising Hit and Never Looked Back. The Script is the Film's Strongest Suit Although the Visual Style, Musical Score (Bernard Herrmann), and Overall Production are Above Average.Taking Cues from Val Lewton, the Frankenstein Story, and the Then Current Trend of Environmental Concern, Pharmaceutical Corruption, and Other Topical Subjects of its Time, the Film is Loaded with Cerebral Conceits and Overall "It's" a Winner.Some Horror Fans of Today will Undoubtedly Complain About the Lack of Visual Slaughter, but that's a Time Stamped, Ill Conceived, Flaw in Thinking and Only Reflects a Myopic Misunderstanding of the Times and Changing Styles and Limitations.The Acting from Both Leads is Way Above Average for This Type of Thing and the Performances from John Ryan and Sharon Farrell are Heartfelt and Commendable.Overall, Worth a Watch Certainly for Thinking Horror Movie Fans and Must Viewing for Larry Cohen Cultists.
byrann_gowan But, it's not the worst.This film is about a husband and wife who give birth to their second child. Unfortunately for them, the baby is a mutant, and they must do all they can to kill it.Simple enough, but there were enough elements in it that kept me interested. For example, throughout most of the film, the baby is kept mostly in the shadows, which I think is a very effective portrait of the baby. It works, and it makes the baby even more creepy when we do see it in full light.Unfortunately, there were some flaws, but the main one that I had was that the acting could have been much better. That being said, it is still better than most acting in horror movies today, where the hot females chicks only say stuff like "Oh my God! Ahhhhhhhhh!" So, it could have been better, but it could have been worse as well.All in all, a decent enough horror film. However, do not go in expecting something like A Nightmare on Elm Street or Jaws, because this is in no way as good as those two, or any other movies along that line. Just go in expecting to be thrilled, and leave your brain at the door. 7/10 for me.