Psycho

Rating:
Summary: What?
Review: Okay no, first of all do not remake Hitchcock movies! He is without a doubt one of the greatest directors of all time. His films are all classics. Why do people try to remake them? They don't need to be remade, stop it! The only thing this movie was good for was to show people that a remade 90's version of a classic 60's version, shot for shot of the original, is just a waist of time! Gus Van Sant is a good director! He had a the cast and the money, so he should of made his own suspence thriller instead of trying to remake a classic. You just can't top Hitchcock, I'm sorry, no matter who you are!

Rating:
Summary: OK, so it's not great ...
Review: ... but it's enjoyable. The film isn't scary, but does keep you in suspense. I would recomend you rent this film rather than buy it, but I would imagine quite a few people would enjoy it (Mind you, loads of people on amazon seem to hate it.) To be honest, I can't see why they don't like it. It seems that people are picking it apart because it's not as good as the origional, but that's stupid, because not every film is a classic. The strangest thing about the movie is the ending (I won't tell you what it is).

Watch this movie, despite it's bad reviews. You never know, you just might be too scared to go in the shower ...

Rating:
Summary: An insult to a great movie
Review: I thought that this movie was horrible. I bet that Hitchcock is rolling over in his grave because the remake of his moive was awful.

Rating:
Summary: did we have to go there?
Review: why did they remake this movie? What was the point...to show it in color?...the only redeeming take on this movie is Vig and Vince...both actors know how to slip on characters like great fitting cowboy boots. Other than that this movie is a waste. Alfred would turn over in his grave over this remake.

Rating:
Summary: I bought it, I'll admit it...
Review: ...but only for comparison. This is quite intriguing in terms of how awful an idea it is, and how it somehow managed to get produced anyway. As the not-too-biased documentary included in the DVD shows, Van Sant fought for years to get this made and only succeeded after Good Will Hunting was a success. It seems like whenever he gets accepted he'll then do some weird experiment that blows up in his face terribly (see Even Cowgirls Get the Blues). The result this time is flat, boring, sometimes laughably bizarre. The cinematography is beautiful but pointless, with the wild set-pieces and costumes ignoring the original's themes and just screaming "COLOR! COLOR! COLOR! " The acting is bad almost all across the board, with only William H. Macy getting through unscathed. Anne Heche is decent but makes Marion pretty unsympathetic, Viggo Mortensen is similarly hard to like, Julianne Moore constantly angry and yet oddly wooden, and Vince Vaughn almost deliriously bad. The script was great in 1959, but would never have been produced in 1998; it's simply from a different era in film and doesn't work today. As a concept, the new Psycho is fascinating, but as a movie it sucks like a vacuum cleaner.

Rating:
Summary: Slow and rushed I find
Review: From the days I was Young I enjoy the orginal "Psycho" then this one was be madeand I though finally One for our generations boy I was Wrong!

Anne Heche Is wasted in the role and Vince Vaughn Will never be ANthony Perkins.

Theres a scene where in the orginal Norman was talking with Marion and he dominated the scene making it very creepy and in this one Anne domaniteds the scene.

A real Dissapointment! Psycho A+ Psycho"98" F

Rating:
Summary: Don't even bother
Review: I saw this film in the theater, and again on video. I didn't like it both times. Despite a great cast (including one of my favorites, William H. Macy)and a great director, I think that this film tries too hard to recreate something that clearly just was not meant to be recreated. If you want a real thrill, rent the original. This one takes to many liberties with the meanings behind some of Hitchcock's original ideas.

Rating:
Summary: A Fresh Look at a Great Classic
Review: How anyone could have not liked this film is beyond me. It is exactly like the original (which is excellent) except that it is in color and features some new actors. I enjoyed it a lot and I think everyone else will too. If you didn't like the original, you probably won't like this one either. But, if you did, you're in for a treat.

Rating:
Summary: Why!
Review: If you're going to see "Psycho," see the original Hitchcock classic. The remake is junk. The performances are ridiculous and pathetic attempts to recapture the brilliance Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins brought to the roles of Marion Crane and Norman Bates. Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche ought to go to over-actors anonymous! I found the color, ultimately, quite distracting. Especially with the horrid day-glo colors they had Anne Heche in. Gus Van Sant should have found something better than a remake to follow the wonderful "Good Will Hunting" with. This movie is a strong argument for why studios should stop producing remakes. The increasing rate of remakes being churned out each year is disgusting. Ignore this piece of celluloid trash and see Alfred Hitchcock's classic original "Psycho"!

Rating:
Summary: Tsk Tsk Tsk
Review: A true waste of celluloid. I was sorry I gave up the hour plus of my time to view this junk; remaking a classis is hard enough (and at times pointless to even attempt it) but with the group of actors assembled here, it's a wonder a studio even offered to make it. Cheezy, unrealistic performances, nothing to sink your teeth into like the original. Sorry but there's just no one like Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh and Alfred Hitchcock.