Rating: 
Summary: Wonderful film unfairly treated
Review: Though the comparisons are inevitable, there is no real need to measure this film against Hitchcok's version. A shot for shot remake, it can be taken as a way to let some wonderful actors have fun with classic roles, and to show what the advent of color has added to a director's possibilities. Vince Vaughn is tremendous (as usual) in this movie, and with it continues to lay a firm claim to best pound-for-pound actor in the world. His quirkiness produces some humorous moments, and these moments have the dual purpose of producing immediate amusement, and cummulative discomfort when you see Norman's later actions. Van Sant uses color beautifully, to show innocence, fear, and paranoia through different hues. I think that this film has suffered from reviewers who could only treat it positively if it was "better" than Hitchcock's film, with "better" performances by the new cast. Obviously, these are not attainable goals, and I doubt the goals that Van Sant or the cast had in mind. I think they tried to pay a loving homage to a classic, and to show their own skills while doing so, and I think they achieved that goal unquestionably.
Rating: 
Summary: So bad its funny.
Review: This has the acting skills of one of the many obscure films forogtten in the vault of horror films. The movie's Norman was far too muscular for the 1960 version. As for the shower scene, okay... we got the red kool-aid on the shower floor, Marion dancing around the shower spewing out something thats soupposed to go into the effect of screaming, the knife going up and down, the violins screeching the exact same haunting theme as the 1960 version, and 2 or 3 slash marks on her back that are barely even bleeding, but WHERE'S THE STINKING BLOOD! And as for those (coughcoughstutter)addons they threw in... does anyone recall the scene where Norman was watching Marion undress? Was that whole scene with him "y'know"ing himself really necessary? And the part where Norman was killing the detective (Though I won't say anything about the knife "missing" his eye and everything else within a 2 inch radius of his eye...)what was the point of the lady with the mask and the cows? I think this was phrased very well by another reviewer. Gus Van Sant, you will never be Hitchcock. Just hope he doesn't try to remake The Birds...
Rating: 
Summary: Why mess with the original?
Review: If Alfred Hitchcock had never existed and Gus Van Sant had assembled this cast to make a new film called "Psycho", I'd probably give this tape 4 stars, perhaps 5. But the fact is that Hitchcock did direct this film first, and had far greater insights into what he was doing than Van Sant did when he attempted this almost shot-for-shot remake.But let's start with the premise that the original "Psycho" is a five-star movie, and work from there. Toss out one star for Van Sant's inferior and slavish duplication of Hitchcock's work, instead of finding his own voice and infusing the movie with a new viewpoint. Throw another down the tubes for the horrible mistake of casting Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates. Although Vaughn is a fine, enjoyable young actor who does the best he can, Norman has to seem like the sort of man-child who wouldn't hurt a fly. Vaughn is too hunky, too hulking, for anyone to believe that he would never harm anyone. That leaves three stars for this otherwise good but useless effort. The rest of the cast is fine at what they do and recreate the original performances of their 1960 counterparts perfectly. But they, in particular William H. Macy and Julianne Moore, must have been frustrated at not being able to leave their own noticeable mark on the movie. It was fun, though, seeing the close resemblance between the policemen in both versions of the movie; I could swear they were identical twins, 28 years apart. But other than that, this version of "Psycho" has no real reason to exist. I don't know why Van Sant even bothered, and just hope he won't continue this trend by remaking "Psycho 2".
Rating: 
Summary: Strong production
Review: other than it's comic look-alike start when showing the date and time and place.. The moive was brilliently directored. i haven't seen the 60's edition of this movie, although many praised it. the technology used in this edition made it much better for a watch. The end came so quick while it should show more investigations till they know how the killing was done. each member of the cast played their role perfectly and they made me stick to the screen with each move. i was happy to see this movie and i can still play it again from time to time. i recommend such kind of thriller/suspense movies.
Rating:
Summary: Bad
Review: I loved the 1960 version of "Psycho." It is one of my favorite films and I even own it. That is Alfred Hitchcock's greatest achievement and one of the best horror films. Anyone who loves horror movies or classics and has not yet seen that film should see it. This new version by Gus Van Sant is terrible. The acting is very poor to begin with. I have never been a fan of Vince Vaughn, but he ruined the part of Norman Bates. He laughs at totally inapproporaite moments and makes it sound forced. Anthony Perkins did a magnificent job as Norman Bates. Anne Heche is also bad and overacts during most of her scenes. I was very disappointed in this film, and I wich it had never been made. Just because this is a shot-for-shot remake of the original, seeing this does not mean that you've seen "Psycho." Seeing this film merely means that you have seen a movie trying to be "Psycho," but instead fails miserably. This is a bad bad film.
Rating: 
Summary: I dunno
Review: I won't waste many words adding to the outcry of why this movie was remade except to say I'm solidly in the corner of those who feel this movie was pointless. In the documentary of the making of this film (DVD version), Van Sant does give an explanation of why he did it, but I STILL came away scratching my head wondering at his logic. Anyway, in an attempt to be fair, I watched this movie and tried to judge it solely on its own merits, without regard to the Hitchcock version (which I admit was extremely difficult to do). But in doing so, I probably would rate it at only 3 stars. On its own, it is really only an average thriller. The acting across the board, with the possible exception of William H. Macy,is mediocre. However, once one compares it to Hitchcock's version, (and Van Sant FORCES us to, by claiming it as a shot-for-shot tribute to the original), this '98 version suffers very badly in the comparison. Again, the uselessness of a shot-for-shot remake cannot escape one's head while viewing. Then in the rare instances that Van Sant DOES break away, it's either completely pointless or stupid (need I mention the little addition of what Vaughn does while watching Marion undress?) If he was going to deviate from the script, could it be a little more useful, as in redoing the scene where Heche trades in her car, all the while being watched by the cop? This scene didn't make sense in 1960, change THIS if you want, Gus! Marion obviously doesn't want to be seen in the same car she had, but what sense to get a different one if the cop will know what it looks like and have the license! The portrayals: Vaughn's take as Norman is a poor copy. He's too big for the character (Norman should be slight and unassuming), he's never believable, and his forced giggles and candy eating get quickly annoying. Viggo Mortensen somehow manages to come off more wooden than John Gavin in the original. Heche is ok as Marion, but I'll take Janet Leigh's portrayal. Macy is good, but Moore comes across as way too angry all the time. She never convinces me that she's concerned about her sister at all, it's more like she's mad that her sister has caused her this inconvenience. All-in-all, a pointless remake. I don't even want to think about the millions of dollars spent bringing this poor "homage" to the screen. I give it 3 stars trying to judge it by itself, 1 star in comparison to the film it was trying to emulate, for my final rating of two stars. I hope the relative failure of this movie at the box office (it wasn't a flop, but it wasn't a huge success) will forestall other directors wanting to remake other classics that should be left alone.
Rating:
Summary: This was a great new stylish view on "Psycho"
Review: I am a huge fan of the original. And I was not at all worried if they had made new modifications on the script. Fortunately, for the die-hard fans, they didn't. But some people decided to complain about it being too close to the original. I don't care! The color keeps the younger audiences and even the adults, more entertained! It may have been the same movie, but the actors were GREAT! Not to mention, Vince Vaughn had a new querky sense to Norman Bates. The score was beautifully remastered, the new Bates' house was actually creepier than the original, and the costuming was an intristing mix between contemporary and 60's. William H. Macy does an excellant job portraying the detective as well! The major thing I liked was the extreme saturation of the colors. This film is very unique, and some of the minor changes are actually very nice and stylish! The original remains my favorite movie of all time, but this is something I prefer to show my friends who have never seen it before! It was an excellant modernization!
Rating:
Summary: An excellent cast, a great director and an okay film.
Review: Don't get me wrong, Psycho 98 was okay, but it could of been a bit more different from the other film than black and white. I mean, the angles were the same, the same people get killed, the same silly shower scene over again and exactly the same music at the same time. I have seen this all before, in the same story with a different cast and different director. Maybe if some new shocks were in store, this film could of been a bit better than it was. Sorry, Gus, you need to improve this.
Rating:
Summary: Psycho 1998 is an imbarassment! Should be overlooked!
Review: "Psycho 1998" is imbarassment to the series! This film should be overlooked as a member of the series! This film was worst than "Psycho III"! The only person in this film that even came close to putting on a good act was Viggo Mortensen! Vince Vaughn was too muscular and buff to play Norman! Julianne Moore is good actress but was just too old to play Lila Crane. Anne Heche was imbarassing even look at compared to Janet Leigh :) This film shouldn't have had any nudity! Norman, Lila, and Marion should've been recast! This film was already a draw when Norman watched Marion through the peep hole and started Masturbating with himself! (Which NEVER happenend in the original, Anthony Perkins should be turning over in his grave! I'm Sorry!) Don't believe the hype this film litrally should've ever, ever, ever been made! You're better off not seeing it, you're not missing ANYTHING!
Rating:
Summary: WHY? WHY? WHY?
Review: This version differs from the 1960 film because it contains a masturbation scene, which in my mind is a metaphor for the whole project. Who does Gus think he is that he can mess with a classic? Vince Vaughn reminded me more of Lenny from "Of Mice and Men" than Norman Bates. There is no reason for this film to exist. Except one. Thanks to modern technology, the long zoom from the cityscape to the hotel window is now one unbroken shot (that's worth a star). Luckily for us it's right at the beginning of the movie, so we can watch just that and then turn this atrocity OFF.
|
