Psycho

Rating:
Summary: WHY A REMAKE?
Review: I don't see the utilitie's to do a remake of the 1960 version, this is a very bad remake with an inappropriate music and a very bad cast. The original was great but this one is very dull, don't rent this stupid movie

Rating:
Summary: Skip it.
Review: Dull, boring, unoriginal

Rating:
Summary: This gets the Worst-Remake-Ever Award.
Review: It's hard to explain how a scene-by-scene remake can fall so short of the original, but somehow, this does. Maybe it's the familiarity of the original actors and the way they say those famous lines (e.g. "We all go a little mad sometimes", "Oh God Mother! Blood!", etc.). Maybe it's the way color film is less menacing than black-and-white. Or maybe it's because you resent the fact that Hollywood is so uncreative these days it has to rip off of classics in the name of making a buck.

Rating:
Summary: Van Sant is WAY off base!
Review: This movie is not scary, it's not suspenseful, it doesn't have the superb acting of Anthony Perkins, and it has a dumb cow in the road as some kooky, exaggerated way of telling us that weird things are happening. Speaking of weird, this Norman Bates is TOO weird. If you were Ann Heche--who looks thoroughly bored in this film--you'd run out of the Bates Motel parlor and would rather fall asleep at the wheel driving all night than eat with Vince Vaughn. Though this is the 90's version, William H. Macy (who did a good acting job) as Det. Arbogast looks like he stepped out of 1960. A mess of a remake.

Rating:
Summary: worst
Review: waorst movie i have ever seen in my whole life ... plus it lacks everything do not see it see the original

Rating:
Summary: VERY FUNNY!
Review: "What's that sound? Oh, it's Sir Hitch rolling over in his grave!" That has been the common reaction to this film. Not so. Believe it or not, PSYCHO was supposed to be an offensive comedy when it was made back in 1960. Gus Van Sant's clone of the classic helped bring out the comedy aspect that was missing in the original. Don't get me wrong;the original was far superior! But this was the first movie that I actually turned around to ask questions to other people in the audience. (namely,"Did I just see a cow in the road?" What was up with that?) And there were times I laughed out loud during this movie. The acting namely by Vauhn and Moore was superb and challenged the performances of Perkins and Miles. But we can also see how much cinema has changed in 38 years. Ex:in the original, John Gavin (Sam Loomis) was worried about having his shirt of in the first scene; in 1998, we see Sam walk around buk naked. 1960, the concept of showing a toilet in a movie was unheard of let alone flushing it;1998, what would the folks of the '60s say about Norman Mastur-Bates watching Marion undress? The clone had some funny new bits though like Sam openly flirting with Lila and her giving him the cold shoulder. And Norman's winking at Lila (I had a friend who actually swooned and looked like she was having an asthma attack in the theatre when she saw 'Vince Vaughn wink at HER') The big problem with the movie is how Gus Van Sant underestimated the viewers' intelligence. (Apparently we weren't supposed to know that Marion and Sam were in that hotel at the beginning to bop. So Gus added the sound of a couple upstairs going at it like yodelling champions on honeymoon. And we weren't supposed to know that Norman was getting hot watching Marion undress, so we get to hear an unpleasant-yet-laughable unzipping sound followed by rhythmic pumping courtesy of Norman's five-digit friend.) But other than that, the majority of the film is watchable. But one of my favorite things they kept in was Norman's constant consumption of jelly-beans or gummi-bears or whatever was in the paper bag after he murdered.

Rating:
Summary: Good Lord! What were they thinking?
Review: Why on earth did they do this? This remake is a complete waste of time, and rather an insult the memory of Hitchcock. I cannot imagine why any sensible director would release such a movie, other than to pad is wallet and ego. This movie is dull, silly, and pointless. The effect of the first Psycho was not only a result of superior filmmaking, but of a shocking story that twists and turns so much the viewer can't help but being left in suspense, wondering what will happen next. With no changes in a plotline that everybody now knows by heart, and filmmaking of a lesser quality than the original, this falls completely flat. The only reason to see this is to laugh and sadly shake your head at the ridiculousness of it all---I was annoyed and perplexed by the costume designer's answer to the psychological loss that filming in color presents: OK, so we not longer have the black/white schism to represent Norman's shattered mind, so lets just dress him up in loud prints and clashing outfits! Oy vey. And speaking of Norman, did Vince Vaughn not seem like a frat boy doing his best creepy-guy impersonation? Sorry, but he's not that creepy, not weird enough for Norman, even with the tacky masturbatory sound-effects (eeeww...)

Rating:
Summary: Totally, utterly pointless.
Review: If you've seen the first one, you will be severely disappointed. Vince Vaughn's acting is so forced and subconscious I wonder how he even got the part. I would remark on Ann Heche's performance but it was so unforgettable I can't.

Rating:
Summary: Where's the scary part?
Review: Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. This movie was simply not scary. It had no suspense at all. Everyone could have guest who the killer was after watching the first 30 minute of the movie. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Rating:
Summary: Could have been much better!
Review: I saw this movie on the Friday night that it came out in theaters first of all because I'm a huge fan of the original and Hitchcock in general. The other reason was because the perviews made it look like it had a differrent element to it that would be worth seeing. I new it was principally a shot-for-shot remake of the original but I was curious. After I saw it, I was overall disappointed. The first thing wrong was that it basically had no new elements. The previews showed strange visions in Normans head that I thought would put a new element in the film but were only used in one shot as he was stabbing Arbogast. The masterbating seem was just stupid, it took the elegance of of the whole film. The dialogue from the original film was also out of date, people don't talk like that anymore. That mixed with the wardrobe, cars and sets gave the feeling that this wasn't the same story set in the 90s, but rather a color remake set in the 60s. Anne Heche succeded in bring a new element to Marion's character but I did not like Vince Vaughn. In the beggining when he meets Marion he tries to hard to seem disturbed, and after he murders he seems to drop everything and be happy in a sick way. As if he was happy that she died. With Perkins it was the other way around. When she met him he was very sweet and a little sad. After he kills he's still nice to people on meeting them but he seems to convey a sense of guilt. In thinking back on it maybe a better idea for Van Zant would have been to make a version of Psycho more based on Robert Bloch's original novel which no one has done. I doubt Van Zant has ever even read the novel.