Main Menu

IT'S ALIVE (1969) coming on IFC 12 midnight - tonight ~ an ASSCRACK of a movie

Started by Allhallowsday, September 21, 2009, 10:17:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Allhallowsday

IT'S ALIVE (1969) coming on IFC 12 midnight - tonight... right now! 

Assuming I'm right, this is the mislabeled 1969 made-for-TV movie directed by LARRY BUCHANAN, probably the greatest horrible director of them all.  Watching this trainwreck of a movie several months ago, I wrote about it somewhere on this board, but I had settled in expecting the 1974 birthing horror, but no, it was this mess of a movie!!!.  Absolutely the worst I've ever seen from beginning to end.  I mean a whole lotta zilch.  We never had so many larfs as looking at this asscrack of a movie. 
If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!

Raffine

IFC pulled this switcheroo a couple of months ago, as well.

I too settled in to watch a killer baby and got this.

Yeah, they don't get much worse that this - unless it happens to be another Larry Buchanan movie!

If you're an Andy Milligan fan there's no hope for you.

Allhallowsday

#2
Quote from: Raffine on September 21, 2009, 10:23:14 PM
IFC pulled this switcheroo a couple of months ago, as well.
I too settled in to watch a killer baby and got this.
Yeah, they don't get much worse that this - unless it happens to be another Larry Buchanan movie!
An asscrack I tell you!  An asscrack!! 

It is properly tagged, this is it... possibly the worst film that actually qualifies as a film, with an actor you may actually have heard of... (TOMMY KIRK)...
If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!


Flick James

I've heard of the 1974 film by that name, directed by Larry Cohen and with effects by the legendary Rick Baker, and unfortunately I've not seen that one either.  I've never heard of another made in 1969.  Is it related to the 1974 film at all?
I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org

Raffine

Quote from: jlb67 on September 23, 2009, 01:00:18 PM
I've heard of the 1974 film by that name, directed by Larry Cohen and with effects by the legendary Rick Baker, and unfortunately I've not seen that one either.  I've never heard of another made in 1969.  Is it related to the 1974 film at all?

Other than they were both directed by guys named 'Larry' - no.



"Nice woik, Porcupine!"
If you're an Andy Milligan fan there's no hope for you.

AndyC

Aw, I missed it. I love that movie, ever since the first time, many years ago, when I tuned in expecting to see the killer baby (just like everyone else, apparently) and got a guy in a wetsuit with ping-pong-ball eyes. I immediately sought out more from Larry Buchanan. The guy was awesome - easily ten times worse than Ed Wood.
---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."

Jim H

Is this the one with a crazy guy who forces people to stay in the cave basement thing with the horribly bad monster that eats them?

If so, that movie is indeed incredibly awful.  Ed Wood, for all his faults, at least you can follow the plots, the lighting and camerawork is competent, and so on.  It's Alive has the distinction of also being really boring, from what I remember of it.

AndyC

Quote from: Jim H on September 23, 2009, 02:43:36 PM
If so, that movie is indeed incredibly awful.  Ed Wood, for all his faults, at least you can follow the plots, the lighting and camerawork is competent, and so on.

I was thinking the same thing while screening Plan 9 outdoors last month. It's actually a good looking movie. Setting aside the bad writing, the low budget, the silly casting choices, the goofy performances, etc., the movie does show some skill. The lighting, the cinematography the sound and the editing are good, perhaps even above average for a 50s b-movie. You can tell Wood and his crew at least knew how to make a movie. It's Alive looks amateur all the way. Anybody who goes around calling Plan 9 the worst movie ever made ought to be forced to watch Larry Buchanan's entire body of work. Of course, if you want bad in a fun and accessible way, Wood has Buchanan beat there.
---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."

Jim H

Quote from: AndyC on September 23, 2009, 02:59:45 PM
Quote from: Jim H on September 23, 2009, 02:43:36 PM
If so, that movie is indeed incredibly awful.  Ed Wood, for all his faults, at least you can follow the plots, the lighting and camerawork is competent, and so on.

I was thinking the same thing while screening Plan 9 outdoors last month. It's actually a good looking movie. Setting aside the bad writing, the low budget, the silly casting choices, the goofy performances, etc., the movie does show some skill. The lighting, the cinematography the sound and the editing are good, perhaps even above average for a 50s b-movie. You can tell Wood and his crew at least knew how to make a movie. It's Alive looks amateur all the way. Anybody who goes around calling Plan 9 the worst movie ever made ought to be forced to watch Larry Buchanan's entire body of work. Of course, if you want bad in a fun and accessible way, Wood has Buchanan beat there.

That's something I've actually given a lot of thought to.  Look at the straight to DVD films that come out now, and look at the straight to video films of the early 80s or the B-movies of the 50s and 60s, etc.  You see a lot of DVD films now that are not even competent.  Mismatched jump cuts, awful editing, terrible video quality, inaudible audio, and so on.  Not every film is like this of course - I just watched Dark Walker.  2003, shot on video, but was actually pretty competently shot and put together (especially considering the $15k budget).  

But having the film barrier, and the difficult restraints it puts on shooting (you NEED a lot of light for film, and it costs a lot of money), meant the bar to make a movie only let in people who were pretty serious.  It was essential for amateurs to at least have someone on hand with a basic understanding of how to light scenes or the entire movie would just be black or washed out entirely.

Because of this, the B-movies of the 50s and early 60s are generally quite competently made.  That takes real skill and craft, regardless of what else you can say about them.  

It makes me wonder how the occasionally truly inept films like It's Alive even got made in that era.  Granted, it was shot on 16MM, which is relatively cheap.  But still...  Just think that someone almost certainly spent over $15k on that film at the minimum.  I'd be curious to know what the actual budget is.  Even Manos cost $19,000 in 1966.  That's about $125,000 today.  

RCMerchant

To view more of Larry's asscrack-try ZONTAR-the THING FROM VENUS (a remake of IT CONQUERED THE WORLD) or IN THE YEAR 2889 which looks a lot like the year 1967-(a remake of THE DAY THE WORLD ENDED. Or the EYE CREATURES (which is a remake of INVASION of the SAUCERMEN) or MARS NEEDS WOMEN-which is a remake of nothing !
Oh-the black guy in IT'S ALIVE is the same guy eating popsicles in DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT!  :buggedout:
"Supernatural?...perhaps. Baloney?...Perhaps not!" Bela Lugosi-the BLACK CAT (1934)
Interviewer-"Does Dracula ever end for you?
Lugosi-"No. Dracula-never ends."

Slobber, Drool, Drip!
https://www.tumblr.com/ronmerchant