Rating: 
Summary: Beside the Point
Review: Simply stated, this near shot-for-shot remake of the original Alfred Hitchcock classic does nothing the original did not do the first time around-- and do much better. While the cast ranges from interesting to merely adequate, and the film itself is unusually faithful to its original source, it lacks the freshness, the nervousness, and the power which the original retains to this day.
Rating: 
Summary: good
Review: I think it takes a lot of talent as a director and cinematographer, and editor to make an exact replica of an original masterpiece. Vince Vaughn was a very creepy Norman Bates, Anne Heche was a fairly good what's-her-face, and everyone else was great too. I have to critique other peoples' critiques though. Hitchcock did not film Psycho in black and white because color wasn't available. it was available. he did it for the effect, and it worked. i do agree, however, that Norman's new house was pretty corny, but everything was almost identical to the original, which i hardly noticed until i saw the making on the DVD where it compares scenes. thank you for listening. please give Van Sant a break, he's a great director, and he DID choose to make this movie, the studio did NOT tell him to do it.
Rating:
Summary: 1960(*****) vs 1998(no star)
Review: Anthony Perkins will really become PSYCHO if he is alive to see this ugly remade movie!! Hitchcock demonstrated an extraordinary character study in his movie. Here they have made a perfect demonstration of how not to remake a movie....I do not recommend this movie even to my enemy. I have seen the original version 21 times. Not once i could sit and watch this movie without cursing all those who are responsible for remaking this.
Rating: 
Summary: ok
Review: I am a huge PSYCHO fan, and when I first heard of this one, I thought"color" I was inpressed that they kept the smme music and most of the original lines, but some parts just diddnt match up. Like when the shrink was explaining Norman, that was nothing compared to the way the shrink did it in the original. And as far as re-creating Norman, forget it. That new guy was plain awful, he realy messed Norman up. He needs to think realy hard before he tries to match Mr.Anthony Perkins again.
Rating: 
Summary: I haven't seen the new version yet.
Review: But, you guys need to get your facts straight. Get the DVD version of the original from Amazon.com like I did. Go through the extra material like I did and you'll realize that Hitch shot it in b/w for a particular reason. Not because he couldn't, but he wanted to do a "low budget" picture. He even used his TV crew to shoot it. The thing that amazed me was that the shower scene took 7 days and SEVENTY setups to complete.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't tread on me!
Review: Why can't you people leave this movie alone! It's perfect the way it is. This movie just goes to show you how an old idea, from 1960 no less, is still scary today. The acting is great, especially Vince Vaughn who is 100% better than that no talent hack Tony Perkins. Anne Heche does not beat Janet Leigh but she makes the character her own, which is what acting is all about. I am a big, big, big fan of Hitchcoks original but Norman would've been better off having been played by Jimmy Stewart. This movie deserves every bit of respect the original has because it is different and daring. So back off you vultures and give this winner some space!
Rating:
Summary: It was OK
Review: The remake was ok but i like the old version better because it had great acting in it and was much scarier. Vince Vaughn was ok playing Norman Bates but Anthony Perkins was the best at it
Rating:
Summary: I thought this thing was supposed to be scary??
Review: I was looking for a good horror movie...thought this was it..NOT. I have never seen the original but if it was anything like this, I can't imagine what all the hoopla was about. This was a boring, boring movie. The plot was not hard to figure out before you were halfway into it. It seemed as if the famous "shower scene" happened way too soon, with little build up...you know the kind...the kind that keeps you on the edge of your seat. For this to be some kind of "remake" of a classic...one has to wonder what was so great about it to begin with. Did they leave that part out?
Rating:
Summary: Don't shower alone!
Review: Well done Gus Van Sant. You have made "Psycho" how Hitchcock would have wanted it to be....in color, in stereo, a bit sexier and with more gore! Come on guys, give Van Sant a break. This film is supposed to be a tribute to Hitchcock. The DVD version is mind-blowing. The creepy theme tune (which has haunted me from childhood) is amazing in digital surround sound, the visuals (now in color) pack a bigger punch (especially the shower scene) and the extra features (Psycho Path doco, screen savers and menu page) are fabulous! My only criticism is why change Norman's house and the shower curtain? The original house was very creepy looking (the new one looks like the Chicken Ranch from "The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas" and the shower curtain is far too trendy for a run-down motel!) Apart from those little faux pas, I loved the new "Psycho". Well done Van Sant, Heche and Vaughn. It reminded me of how scarey it is to shower alone!
Rating:
Summary: Not bad, but nevertheless...
Review: I'm sorry Ms. Heche, but you're no Janet Leigh. Nor is Gus Van Saint Alfred Hitchcock, William Macy Martin Balsam, the lovely Julianne Moore Vera Miles, and most certainly, nor is the new guy playing Norman Bates anywhere near Anthony Perkins.I understand this wasn't Mr Vant Saint idea but the studio's. Nevertheless, it's a BLASPHEMY! A very well made one, a respectful one, no doubt, but a BLASPHEMY all the same!
|
