Psycho (1998) User Reviews

An Interesting Exercise If Nothing More

[michellegriffin-04989 · 4/10 · 7 August 2020]

Watchable in a film school project kind of way, but its obsession with trying to do everything exactly like Hitchcock's version leaves it cold and emotionless. Who'd have ever thought seeing Marion Crane slashed to death in a shower would inspire nothing more than a simple shrug? As a stand alone movie, it doesn't work very well.

Yes, but why?

[neil-476 · 6/10 · 22 March 2011]

If nothing else, Gus Van Sant's Psycho is an interesting exercise - a shot-for-shot remake of Hitchcock's classic, using the same script, music, and fair representations of the set, props etc., only in colour this time. And, like many experiments, it doesn't meet with the success its makers may have hoped for.

I can't go along with those who have marked it down to 1 - the strength of the source material alone justifies a more positive reaction than that. Plus, a score of 1 surely intimates that Hitchock's script, set, music, and shot choices were terrible, because they are all here in this version, so there can be no other conclusion. They weren't terrible then, and they're not terrible now. No, a score of 1 is no more than a knee-jerk reaction to someone having the nerve to remake Hitchcock.

Where this version fails in the sheer essence of being copied: that fact drains it of any originality, and robs the performers of any opportunity to add anything of themselves to the film. Instead you end up with sterile copies of the classic performances elicited with Hitchcock, and this is a shame because the performers are all good (and Vince Vaughan, who went on to play the same character in a series of increasingly poor comedies, edges perilously close to his own version of creepy).

I was going to say that what you end up with is like a painting-by-numbers version of an old master - you can see what made the original a classic, but there is something drastically lacking in the execution. But perhaps a better analogy is that this version is like a reanimated corpse - you can see the person it used to be, but it has no life of its own.

I would add a couple of further thoughts: making this film was not a crime, and it hasn't removed Hitchcock's original from the world. It's still out there, folks. And it's far more worth seeing than this.

Not Shocked, but surprised

[DBBanner · 6/10 · 5 February 2012]

Alright I was like a majority of people when it comes to remakes, they normally stink, so i was very hesitant about watching this. Alfred Hitchcock is my favorite director of all time and I thought anyone else trying to ride his coat tails is just a no talent director looking for a way to make a buck. But honestly I didn't have a problem with this. It was a shot for shot remake very few differences in script scenery and emotion. I was too fond of the adding of color the movie still hits harder in black and white then it does with color, but what movie doesn't... Exception Wizard of Oz. The acting is actually pretty good better then anticipated Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche do a great job doing their reprisal of my favorite scene in the movie when both are in the parlor. Really the only downfall was Julianne Moore acting like a punk and acting more aggressive, Vera Miles had an Oscar worthy performance in the original should have just stuck with it. But my favorite addition was Vigo Mortinson, I admit never been a huge fan of his but he was very good as Sam Loomis, and honestly he was in my opinion better then John Gavin, who even Alfred Hitchcock wasn't pleased with. All in all it's a remake so don't get your hopes up for something that will surpass the original which was as close to a perfect horror film as you can get, but do expect to be entertained after all that's why movies are made and this one certainly entertained me, It just didn't blow me away like the original.

Shot For Shot....... Except

[worldsofdarkblue · 1/10 · 23 June 2006]

Hitchcock's original classic benefited tremendously not only from the performance of, but also the 'look' of Anthony Perkins. He projected a kind of clean-cut innocence: a young teen-idol type of persona. He was not an actor who had portrayed baddies before this; nor was he physically suited to the role of what the public might have imagined a psychopath to look like, especially in the 50's when this ultra-chilling aspect of mental illness (split personality psychosis) was relatively unexplored in film. Which is exactly why the casting of him as Norman Bates was a slice of true Hitchcockian genius. Audiences were taken by surprise to put it mildly.

That's why this re-make does not work, even a little bit, in spite of trying to be an exact copy. Whereas Anthony Perkins looked like someone you would never think of as being a serial killer, Vince Vaughn is easily imaginable as one. He lacks the frail look of Perkins and his acting chops are clearly inferior as well, at least in this role (honestly - has there ever been an actor who could convey nervousness as genuinely as Anthony Perkins?). While it was a pointless re-make to begin with, the miscasting of the story's most important character sucks this film down completely.

As a side note, I feel that Hollywood's propensity for re-making great movies because 'young' people refuse to watch anything that's not filmed in color not only stinks to high heaven of corporate greed but is exceptionally disrespectful to the original work. As for viewers who can't watch black and white - it's their loss. Hopefully they'll mature sometime in the future and no longer require shiny colours to hold their attention. When they do they'll discover that sometimes black and white works far better. With the background muted, the story and performances are that much more front and center. And in many cases the mood or atmosphere created through black and white cinematography is just not attainable in colour.

An Interesting Case

[peterzullman · 2/10 · 24 May 2010]

Film! What a mystery. Nobody can doubt that Gus Van Sant is a truly gifted filmmaker - I'm writing this after "Milk" - so how can it be that remaking a classic like "Psycho" shot by ,virtually, shot, Van Sant fails so miserably. Not an ounce of what made the original what it is, makes it to the remake. Every wrong choice found a home here. Anne Heche? Who thought of it? She is so bad with that unbearable little voice, one kind of wants her to die. Julianne Moore makes her Vera Miles part a butch, unattractive character. Viggo Mortensen, an actor I love, is kind of embarrassing as is William H Macy in the Martin Balsam part. The wardrobe is unforgivable and Chris Doyle, one of the best living cinematographers, creates a flat, painful, jarringly colorful frame but the worst of all is Vince Vaughn. Absolutely unforgivable. What a terrible, terrible performance. The exact opposite of Anthony Perkins where everything was intensely personal. Here it feels like a Saturday Night Live sketch, one of the less fortunate ones. I haven't been able to forgive Vince Vaughn. That silly, shallow giggle he gives to Norman Bates, will return to haunt him.

Vince Vaughn's Norman Bates is the problem

[excalibur107 · 2/10 · 4 April 2017]

19 years after the original shock of seeing one of the great Hitchcock classics massacred by one of the greatest living directors, I sat to watch it again. Surprise, surprise. Gus Van Sant's daring attempt could have been another masterpiece if the casting of Norman Bates, in particular, had been more visionary and less opportunistic. Imagine what a break for an actor to re-invent that iconic character. Imagine what Heath Ledger, Billy Crudup, Ryan Gosling or Guy Pearce could have done with it. I'm sure that if you had been riveted rather than embarrassed by that characterization, if Vince Vaughn was more of a serious actor who understood the responsibility of his endeavor Van Sant's Psycho would have been a triumph.

So-so, until you compare it to the original – then it's poor

[bob the moo · 15 June 2002]

Marion Crane steals $400,000 and is escaping to meet her boyfriend. When she gets tired during a stormy night she stops at the Bates motel. When she goes missing her sister, boyfriend and a private detective start to look for her. However the Bates motel run by Norman and his mother is a place of many secrets.

Remakes are regular things nowadays, but carbon copies are rare. This is a lift in terms of dialogue, shots almost everything at times. The big question is why? As a film in its own right it's not terrible but comparing it to the original it literally pales in comparison (despite the colour!). Why did we need this – sure on some level it may reach those who haven't seen the original and don't want to watch an 'old' film. But really – why should we indulge the multiplexers who refuse to watch anything made before 1991?

It's not bad – it's poor a poor relation of the original. In the UK we often get 50th anniversary etc re-releases of old films nationwide (admittedly not in all cinemas), in fact Psycho was out a few years ago. So the idea that a cheap copy is good because it'll help open it up to new audiences.

The cast are all OK – until you watch the original. Then Vaughn stands out as doing a poor imitation, Heche is nowhere near Leigh and Julianne Moore has too much 'strong woman' baggage from other roles to do well. Admittedly the all-star cast gives weight to the roles that were relatively minor – Macy, Mortensen, Forster, James LeGros, Philip Baker Hall etc – although really the question is why they all queued up to be in this toss!

Overall it's so-so as a film. However when you compare it to the original it's really a poor show and, because it's a carbon copy, you can't help but compare it line for line, scene for scene, actor for actor.

So-So

[chucknorrisfacts · 6/10 · 16 February 2012]

I'll try to make this short and sweet…

Overall, the original "Psycho" is obviously better. However, I don't think the remake is nearly as awful as everyone likes to say it is. I mean, how could it be? For the most part, it's a shot-for-shot remake. To say the remake is terrible is kind of like saying the original sucks.

Sure, the performances weren't as good in this movie as those in the original film, but most of the action that occurs in the movie was the same.

I think there were some good performances in the movie, though, just not Vince Vaughn's. It kind of saddens me in a way to say that, because ordinarily I like Vince Vaughn but he was undeniably weak here, and seemed unsuited for the part.

I was a little surprised that when the infamous shower scene happens, after Norman Bates murders Marion, you can see her butthole as she falls out of the shower.

I don't remember that in the original…

I mean, was this remake necessary? Not really. Most remakes aren't. However, it could've been worse. I think that Rob Zombie's horrible remake of "Halloween" deserves to be bashed far more than this film.

Casting director must have been psycho!

[someone989 · 2/10 · 13 July 2004]

*some possible spoilers*

Of course this film could not be expected to be as good as the original, remakes rarely are. But, this remake of one of Hitchcock's greatest films, Psycho, could have been a lot better.

First of all, whoever cast the movie must have been psycho. I mean, Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates! What where they thinking?! Unlike the "harmless", almost childlike Bates that Anthony Perkins was able to portray, Vaughn looks like he would could be a murderer. In efforts to make his Bates seem innocent, Vaughn ends up acting gay. Many of the other actors didn't seem to fit their parts either, including Julianne Moore who just didn't seem to fit in the film.

On top of the atrocious casting, the cinematography is notably shabby, despite the fact that they remade the film scene for scene. The one thing they added were random shots of object such as clouds or a nude woman, in between the shots of characters being murdered. These shots seemed to be irrelevant to the plot in anyway, and in turn made no sense.

Overall, this Psycho remake, which could been a decent picture, instead turned out to be a complete waste of time.

Flawed but not as bad as everyone says it is

[bellino-angelo2014 · 6/10 · 24 November 2022]

I was always a bit afraid about watching the PSYCHO remake because it has an appalling score of 4,6 and mostly bad reviews, and as nearly everyone else, I loved the 1960 original by Hitchcock. However being some sort of masochist I left my fears and last May I finally saw it.

There is no need to talk about the plot as it's a frame to frame remake of the original. Suffice to say that the new cast (the late Anne Heche as Marion Crane, Julianne Moore as her sister, Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates, Viggo Mortensen as Sam Loomis, William Macy as Milton Arbogast) is fine and some of the moments that were scary in the original were a bit gorier since it's from the 1990s. Gus Van Sant's direction was focused and the soundtrack too on par with that of the original.

Needless to say, it's a remake that is best to be seen without reading the reviews first. I think that if Hitchcock wouldn't have made PSYCHO in 1960, this would have been liked better as a standalone movie.

A Crime of Profit, Not Passion.

[rmax304823 · 2/10 · 3 September 2005]

This is, per se, an above average film but why in the name of Bog was it made? It's impossible to treat it as a thing unto itself because it is an almost shot-for-shot remake of an Alfred Hitchcock classic of 1960. You can't watch it without the 1960 film nudging into your consciousness.

What does the word "credit" mean? How can we credit Van Sandt and his associates with anything except deciding to use different actors, slightly different sets, and color?

Anne Heche is attractive but lacks Janet Leigh's stolid determination to become a respectable middle-class woman. And Heche is younger than Leigh, who brought to her fruitless attempt to marry and settle down, the desperation of a woman facing forty. And Heche doesn't project anxiety the way Leigh did. The scene with the CHP officer looking in her car window illustrates the weakness in the role. In the original, the officer asks, "Is there something wrong?" Leigh: "Of course not. Am I acting as if something were wrong?" The officer hesitates before replying: "Well, frankly, yes." That exchange is omitted from the remake for the simple reason that Heche isn't nervous enough.

The worst change, without a doubt, is the substitution of Vince Vaughn for Anthony Perkins. It may not be Vaughn's fault. Who could match Perkins in the role? Perkins is twitchy, bird-like, long-necked, cloaked in an externally charming exterior that masks an inner vacuum. His every move (eating candy corn, with his adam's apple bobbing) and every utterance, the faint laugh, the arid chuckle, is spot on. He just can't be improved upon. Vaughn brings to the role the presence of a short-haired beefy guy who was just discharged as a Lance Corporal from the U. S. Army. To suggest his psychosis all he can do is superimpose a maniacal giggle on top of what appears otherwise a perfectly normal Norman in speech and manner. (Unlike the original Norman, Vaughn doesn't even stumble over the word "fallacy" because it resembles "phallus".) He could be just hanging around the motel waiting to hear about his application for a football scholarship to UCLA.

The direction deserves a few comments. I don't see what it adds to the story when we see Norman masturbating while peeping in on Anne Heche. I don't OBJECT to it. I wonder why it's there, just as I wonder why the rest of the movie is there.

And, I suppose in order to impress us with how much color adds to the visual experience, Van Sant seems to have missed a bit of Hitchcock's more subtle stuff. Heche is given underwear of all different colors -- green, pink, orange, and -- mango? Is that a color? If so, what the hell color is it? Never mind. The point is that in the original, when the traveling camera first peeks through the window of the Phoenix hotel it captures Janet Leigh in bed wearing a pure white half slip and a white bra. Later, after she has stolen the money, we see her in her underwear again -- this time both her slip and bra are black. Tis a small thing, but Hitch's own.

At that, the idea of shooting in color might not have been bad except that the black-and-white shooting of the original was superb. The color and odd lighting effects in this version turn the ordinary, dull, and subliminally ominous motel into something that looks like it belongs in the seedier part of Las Vegas.

Most of all, the 1960 film was shocking in more ways than one. I can remember seeing it in a drive-in in San Diego and staring aghast at the screen when it became clear that the central character was actually DEAD -- half-way through the movie! Nothing like it had ever been done before.

That murder in the shower, in both movies, was a big improvement over Robert Bloch's original novel, by the way, in which the author writes something like, "The murderer then entered the bathroom and cut off her head with a knife." I'm not making that up. Well, not entirely. Even here, Van Sant's movie gives us excess. There is more blood and more bare flesh. And where Hitchcock closed in first on the blood circling the bathtub drain and dissolved to Marian's blankly open eye, then pulled the camera back slowly to reveal her face, he rotated his camera from a slight tilt to the proper vertical, giving the viewer a sense of not just disbelief at the murder, but a dizzying disbelief. Van Sant doesn't tilt his camera a delicate 10 or 20 degrees as Hitchcock did. He practically twirls it on its axis.

It won't do to call this a bow to Hitchcock because it's not. It's a pecuniary plundering of Hitchcock's material (already ripped off in "Psycho" I, II, III, IV, and "Psycho: The Beginning Years", and "Come Into My Parlor: Mrs. Bates' Revenge," and "Hand Me That Knife, Would You?: The TRUE story of Norman Bates.") A rehashing of and grinding away at truly original stuff, a crumenal act if not a criminal one. And that's not to mention the many homages in other films, especially the French, such as the notorious "ocean of boredom" scenes between Marcel Brulee and Jeanne Gateau in the much-admired "La Mere de la Nuit." (Maybe I'd better add that that last sentence is a terrible attempt at a parody of academic critics. And when a chicken's guts grind corn, it's a "crumenal" act. I won't go on except to say these gags, shabby as they are, are more fun than the movie.)

So who was it made for? I'd have to guess. Kids who are too young to know about the original and who don't like movies in black and white? Kids who are hoping to see another ordinary slasher movie? Chimpanzees?

Anthony WHO?

[PartialMovieViewer · 10/10 · 1 March 2014]

I always thought the original 'Psycho' was untouchable. The cast, the directing, the script...how could you beat any of this? I cant believe I was so wrong. I had no idea that a sequel starring one of those "Wedding Crashers" would overshadow a massive classic like this and mop the floor with the likes of Anthony Perkins and that Hitchcock Guy. Phew! What a movie and was I so wrong. This was so good, it really rocked. It was such a good flick, they need another remake - now. Granted, there might have been a few things people felt like they missed from the original. The one thing that pops in my mind was that this rendition had no suspense. Pffft - suspense - really? Who needs suspense? Not me...not any more. I am looking forward to a remake of "The Birds" and maybe "The Man Who Knew Too Much." I always enjoy a good solid nap whenever I go to the movies.

Nowhere near as bad as everyone makes out.

[dolomitehl · 6/10 · 23 November 2022]

Everybody knows doing a remake of a classic movie is a mammoth task in itself but to remake a Hitchcock masterpiece is very brave indeed. I think Gus Van Sant did a very good job, certainly no where near as bad as the critics said it was. I thought it was well acted especially by William H. Macy and Robert Forster in their brief scenes, there were a few flaws that I thought were a little unnecessary like the masturbation scene and the nudity in the shower scene, I felt that as a scene for scene remake those parts should have been kept as they were in the original movie especially as Van Sant made the effort to get all the details right in other scenes, also I didn't get the Walkman thing with Julianne Moore. I think if the original version never existed and this was a stand alone movie, it would have never been panned as badly as it was but unfortunately Gus Van Sant had a tough mountain to climb with this one. Anyway I liked it.

Why?

[arichmondfwc · 1/10 · 4 January 2005]

Yes, why? Among the filmmakers that came out in the 80's and 90's Gus Van Sant is one of my idols. There are others, a few. Steven Sodebergh, PT Anderson, Tim Hunter, Danny Boyle, Martin Donovan, Harmony Korine, Wes Anderson. Idiosyncratic, infuriating some times, but consistent, surprising, unpredictable. Their names make me switch on the TV, go to a video store or even buy a ticket and go to a movie theater. Van Sant's "Psycho" however, gives me pause. Why? I wonder. A shot by shot massacre of one of the perennial classics. The color was jarring, the performances, atrocious. What was Vince Vaughn doing? Was it a parody? A bad joke? What the hell was it? Anne Heche as Janet Leigh? Who dressed her? Viggo Mortensen with a cowboy hat. Viggo is a superb actor but in this case he couldn't make us forget John Gavin and if Julianne Moore had been introduced to the world through this performance there wouldn't have been any "The Hours" for her, "The Minutes" maybe. So, here I am, bad mouthing the work of one of my idols. The crashing question remains: Why, Mr. Van Sant? Maybe, in the words of President Clinton, because he could. I'm afraid that's no excuse.

How did Van Sant get financing for this? That's the real question.

[Mr-Fusion · 2/10 · 7 March 2017]

"Psycho" isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it . . . aw, it's terrible. An utterly soulless exercise in mimicry with an awful cast. what I really missed was Anthony Perkins; the guy had a clean- cut look that subverted his madness. But Vince Vaughn just screams serial killer. That's why none of this works. The stylistic choices are all ham-fisted, and there's no suspense because we're too busy comparing it to the original. And because it's "shot-for-shot", that's a hundred times worse than your average remake - most of which , by the way, usually bring something new to the table. Not here.

Avoid at all costs. This is not worth it.

2/10

One question, if I may . . . While we're on the subject of shot duplication, why the hell would you throw in an image of Heche hanging over the side of the tub? It deviates from the original, doesn't do your actress any favors (as Kevin Smith and Ralph Garman will certainly attest), and it's just asking for future Internet meme infamy.

How the heck did this get green-lit?

[bregalad-2 · 1/10 · 29 September 2008]

OK, first of all, who in their right mind would remake Hitchcock and second, who would do it shot for shot? I admit I had no intention of ever watching this movie for that very reason. The original Psycho is one of my favorite films ever and this just seemed like a degrading photocopy of it. I did watch it because my girlfriend wanted to compare it to the original and we both agreed less than five minutes into this crap that it was awful. First, as mentioned, they did it shot for shot. Where's originality? Why remake a movie that is almost perfect EXACTLY the way it was done the first time? Why remake such a movie to begin with? If you ARE going to remake something, remake something that doesn't work and make it BETTER!

Second, they used the exact same script from the 1960 version. The dialog no longer works. It works fine and sounds perfect for the 1960 version, but seems odd and stilted coming out of modern actors. Why not update the dialog? Hitch didn't write the script, you could have rewritten.

This film had some very good talent and they were wasted by imitation of the original actors. The actor who played the car salesman seemed like he was just playing John Anderson's performance as the car salesman in the original. All the actors seemed like the only direction they were given was be the characters from the original movie. Vince Vaughn may have seemed a little creepier than Anthony Perkins, but in doing so, you loose the sympathy you are supposed to have for Norman. Having Norman masturbate while watching Marion undress was going too far and lost the innocence of the character that I think Tony Perkins captured so well in his performance. Viggo Mortensen's accent was annoying and Rita Wilson was far too old to play Caroline. Her lines came off as someone desperate rather than just young and fun like Patricia Hitchcock's performance.

The only good thing I saw about the film was that Gus Van Sant was able to open the movie with the shot Hitch had envisioned. Hitch wanted to open with 1 long shot going over Phoenix but couldn't at the time so he had to settle for a series of shots cross-dissolved together. This film fulfilled that vision with a helicopter shot going into the window of the hotel. After that, though the film became a worthless waste of celluloid.

If you are curious about how to destroy a wonderful film, watch this, but do NOT under any circumstances watch this BEFORE you watch the original. This is a faded photocopy of the original and should never have been green-lit. Stick to the master's film, not the imitation.

Anne Heche is so bad...

[liderc · 1/10 · 12 September 2001]

First of all: To remake a Hitchcock movie is a really bad idea. Maybe if you make another adaption of the idea behind the movie or something like this, but to remake shot for shot is really a waste of time. This makes the movie bad enough, but the director added some lousy actors to make this movie really a stinker: Anne Heche will make you scream in pain! First of all she looks totally unattractive with her ultra-short hair, her odd mimicks and odd way of dressing in this movie. The actor who play Norman only gets on ones nerve with his unbearable nervous ticks. The only good actor was the guy who played Marions boyfriend (Vigor Mortensen I think was his name): he is really hot-looking, altough his hairstyle is somehow unfitting. The shower scene is simply boring, but the relief to see Heches last scene in the movie is quite big. That they where to lazy to compose a new score and just revamped the old one which only clashes with the new images, is also quite ridiculous in my opinion. Avoid it, watch the original.

Cinematic blasphemy

[Heimpi · 24 August 2006]

This movie was the worst remake I've ever seen in my life. Apart from being totally pointless, it was practically a copy of the original. If they had done something differently, maybe I would like it more, but this movie disgusted me and it does not reach even one third of the standard and the suspense of Hitchcock's immortal masterpiece.

The new shower murder made me feel sick and Anne Heche was acting like a prostitute the whole time. It seemed like she was flirting with everybody, even the cop who stops her. Vince Vaughn was giggling like an idiot, when it just came naturally for Anthony Perkins. And since when exactly did Norman turn into Master Bates??? Trying to match Anthony Perkins' flawless portrayal of Norman Bates was also pointless. You know from the minute that you see Vince Vaughn that the guy is so obviously deranged. And you probably will have a rough idea of what the ending will be like as well. They're going to haul nutjob back to the nuthouse where he so CLEARLY belongs!!!

Lila was way too aggressive, and it seemed like she was always angry. And what was she doing winking at Norman like that? Marion's boyfriend was really annoying and weird, and I don't see how he could wrestle Vince Vaughn to the ground, especially with Vince being so muscular.

The actors were a bunch of people basically playing dress-up, and everyone spoke way too fast. And you could also tell from the first second that Norman is crazy. Marion was dumb to stay at the motel.

This film is an insult to the Hitchcock name, or at the very least a failed experiment. Gus Van Sant has failed miserably on this one.

Do yourself a favour and buy the original where you can enjoy one and a half hours of suspense, scares and screeching violins and don't waste your money on trash like this.

God bless Hitchcock!

-1/10

Pointless but actually pretty good

[preppy-3 · 7/10 · 28 April 2005]

A remake of Alfred Hitchock's classic.

You know the plot--A woman (Anne Heche) steals a large amount of money so she and her boyfriend (Viggo Mortensen) can start a life together. During the drive to his town, it gets late and she decides to spend the night at a motel. It's called Bates Motel and she meets the owner Norman Bates (Vince Vaughn)...

To be totally honest I never liked the original. It was well-directed and pretty well-acted with a great music score and great direction--but I always found it kind of slow and dull. Still--this remake was not needed. Why a talented director like Gus van Sant chose to do this is beyond me. But FOR WHAT IT IS...it's actually pretty good.

It's NOT a frame by frame remake of the original like some people claim. Things are changed. Van Sant shot the murder scenes differently--a wise choice. Imitating Hitchcock's ones wouldn't have worked. Characters and situations are updated (purportedly Julianne Moore's character is supposed to be a lesbian--but I never caught that) and van Sant directs it (mostly) his way. A few times he does direct it the way Hitchcock would but not all the time.

Also the acting is almost uniformly great. Heche is very good in her role and Vaughn is (surprisingly) just terrific as Bates--he plays it differently than Anthony Perkins did and actually adds a new dimension to the character. He plays Norman as a little boy trapped in a man's body...but you also see the anger and violence lurking right underneath the surface. Strong support is given by Julianne Moore and William H. Macy (VERY good) in supporting roles. The only disappointment is Viggo Mortensen. I've never thought he was a good actor and this movie does nothing to change my mind. The southern accent he adopts is particularly silly.

I'm not really sure why but this movie seems to move faster than the original. I still think there was no point to remaking the original but I do like this. It was a HUGE critical and commercial bomb so I don't think we'll be seeing anymore Hitchcock remakes.

I give it a 7.

A Dumb Idea That Didn't Work

[ccthemovieman-1 · 3/10 · 6 July 2006]

Well, I have to agree with the critics on this one, who all said "leave it alone." Why they had to make this re-make of the 1960 "Psycho," I don't know. My guess is they wanted to reach a new audience and thought color and modern-day actors were the answer, since those were the main changes. The dialog was the same and the story the same.

On one hand, I applaud them for not making this over with a lot of profanity and nudity and making it a sleazy film. Yet, if they were going to keep everything the same, why bother when you weren't going to improve on Tony Perkins, Janet Leigh and the original cast?

Did they honestly think Vince Vaughn was going to be as good or better than Perkins? Are you kidding? Ann Heche, with her short mannish-haircut, is going to be better than Leigh? I don't think so!

Yes, the colors were pretty in here but it's the black-and-white photography that helped make the 1960 version so creepy to begin with. It's perfect for the story, not a bunch of greens and pinks! Once again, I guess the filmmakers were banking on an audience that never saw the original.

This was just a stupid project that never should have gotten off the ground.

It's Not Bad, But Lacks The Punch Of The 1960 Original

[vengeance20 · 6/10 · 4 May 2023]

Saw this last night after having it on DVD for 10 years but not getting around to watching until now.

The films story is much the same as the original. It's actually a shot for shot remake of the 1960 original so every line you hear in this flick is what you heard in the original.

I found the film to be not bad. I mean, it's not great, but then it's not terrible either. The casting is maybe a bit off but not bad. The shower scene is ok, but not as suspenseful or as dark and sinister as the original. The film is in colour and I guess improves on the film in terms of moderness, of course the film now is nearly 26 years old but, it still doesn't feel as old or slightly dated as the 1960 film.

The pacing isn't bad and the runtime of 95 minutes (1 hour 35 minutes), isn't bad at all and about right for a film like this. Of course this film isnt a patch on the 1960 original, but it ain't terrible either.

Overall, it's not bad. While it improves on colour (not that that was an issue with the original but it's an improvement) and modernises the original a bit morw for a new generation, it's still not great, but is ok for what it is.

6/10.

dreadful & embarrassing

[telegonus · 1/10 · 2 April 2001]

A horrendous film, ill-conceived and crude. The acting of Anne Heche and Vince Vaughan is so inferior to that of Perkins and Leigh in the original version they have to be seen to be believed. There was no reason to make this picture, which only highlights how accomplished and brilliant Hitchcock was, and how inimitable. Also, there's a creeping, pervasive insensitivity in the film that isn't there in the first film. Hitchcock's Psycho was scary and shocking, but one could genuinely feel for all concerned, even the pitiful Norman Bates. There were moments of pathos, irony and fey humor the remake doesn't have. One of the best things about Hitchcock's film was its incredible and intuitive depth and sense of nuance, of when to cut away and when to show something, on whether to use a close-up or long shot, on whether to make an actor sympathetic and when to make him frightening, and so forth. The remake has none of these qualities and doesn't even try for them. It's an idiotic exercise that I'm amazed even got released.

Very enjoyable

[qsyrhhv · 8/10 · 19 August 2022]

A remake of a classic Hitchcock. I actually really enjoyed the film and thought the cast was fabulous especially Vince Vaughn he's perfect for the part of Norman bates.

Better than a colourization

[sam-321-129561 · 7/10 · 8 May 2012]

Perhaps a pointless remake, perhaps not, but certainly better than a colourization. This movie is a 99% word-for-word, shot-for-shot, camera-angle-for-camera-angle, set-for-set remake. You're practically watching the same movie, just in colour with today's actors, fashion etc. with one or two little tweaks.

So, certainly, if the original movie was well scripted, well directed and had a good story, this translates over to the remake. The question is, is there any point in watching it? That depends on you. How familiar are you with the original? If it's one you've seen a few times and enjoyed, it might be worth experiencing it again a little sharper, more colourful and up-to-date. If you're a Hitchcock veteran and love the original, you might be disappointed by the different actors and the fact that the creepy black and white atmosphere is drained from it by default. If you've never seen Psycho, well, this is a great way of experiencing it without having to accommodate for datedness.

While there is some occasional cheapness due to remaking a scene exactly, for example a certain exact remake of a violent scene on a staircase seems a little fake in a 1998 film, Psycho's message makes it through, and it's definitely one to show to your younger siblings (or whoever else) whose minds aren't open enough to watch a black and white movie.

Did anybody really imagine Saul Bass' opening credits to be lime green like that though? Ha ha! Red, if anything!

Pointless? Perhaps. But I certainly believe that it's worth doing what you can to keep something good alive, where restrictions of its time cause it to become dated and less accessible. The original has a better atmosphere (due to the black and white) but the story and suspense make it through just fine.

the absolute Hitchcock rip-off

[weyez1 · 1/10 · 16 December 2000]

Van Sant copies Hitchcock's masterpiece shot for shot including some modern facets: a walkman, and nudity from Anne Heche. Unless you have a strong desire to see Ms. Heche naked there is absolutely NO reason to see this film instead of the original. Hitchcock's masterpiece is much better and Van Sant fails to realize that in hiding the nudity and the gore, the original shower scene is all the more terrifying. Ask Janet Leigh about that one. The acting is also much flatter and the technical aspects much less impressive.