Rating: 
Summary: A valiant effort under Hitchcock's shadow
Review: The 1998 remake of 'Psycho' is not the total disaster that many critics have claimed it be yet,falls painfully short of Alfred Hitchock's original 1960 version.The odd thing about this film is that is more recreation than remake.Joseph Stephano's script is followed almost verbatim.Only minor deviances are made(the amount of stolen cash is now $400,000 not 1960's $40,000,Moore's character makes reference to her Walkman,ect,ect).The biggest difference here is Vince Vaughan's Norman Bates.This Norman is not Anthony Perkins portraying a weak sexually ambigous Momma's boy.Vaughan's Norman is a large, imposing, socially inept oddball who,is a more of a realistic threat than Perkin's timid stuttering Norman.Vaughan's portrayal is much closer to the conception of the character in Robert Bloch's novel than Perkin's was yet,fans of the original film may not find this to their liking.Anne Heche,an actress I have never been impressed with,suprised Me with her dead on accuracy in playing the doomed Marion Crane.The momentary look of panic on her face when she accidently pulls out the stolen cash from her bag as she fumbles to provide a suspicious highway patrolman with her driver's licence surpasses anything Janet Leigh did in the earlier film.Heche's Marion is all at one comical,alluring and,tragic.With the exception of Vaughan and Heche,the rest of the cast never strikes fire with their roles.Viggo Mortensen's Sam Loomis comes across as cardboard and indecisive,never once seeming very concerned with his girlfriends dissapearance.Julianne Moore's sleepwalk through the role of Lila Crane makes Mortensen seem like Sir Ralph Richardson by comparison.Moore is markedly lacking in affect.Some of the zombie extras in 'Night of the Living Dead' were more dynamic in scope.Moore acts like the stuck up prom Princess with Ice Queen attitude waiting to be put into her place.Perhaps she was never made aware of the fact that she was playing a young woman who's sister had vanished and was in all probability already dead.The emotions you would expect of someone in such an incredibly tragic situation are never conveyed in Moore's demeanor.William H. Macy's private detective is more of an outright misfire.Macy plays Arbogast as if he thought he was Dick Powell in a mid 1940's film noir.Macy gives a performance that is out of step with the film.Martin Balsam in the same role was able to covey determination and a quiet,dignified,self assurance.Macy appears only arrogant and pesty.Robert Forster is able to infuse his small role as the psychiatrist at the films conclusion with sensitivity and, dignity.In conclusion,If this film is to be considered a failure(and because of Vaughan and,Heche I opine that it is not!) the reason for this is Gus Van Sant.Van Sant,to his credit,is respectful off the original.This may be the problem in the film's shortcomings.It is one thing to see King Lear on Broadway starring Ian Mckellen and then, a few years later see it in London with Derek Jacobi but filmgoers accustomed to remakes and sequels have never been subjected to a major motion picture being a virtual carbon copy of an extremely famous film.It is nice to witness another director finding new possibilities in the same script but perhaps,a more obcure film would have been a better test subject for such a venture.
Rating: 
Summary: A WINNER
Review: Let the major critics wallow in sentimentality over memories of the original and engage in the expected Hitchcock idol worhip. Following the original literally is a compliment to him, and not unimaginative mimicry. See this film. and putting prejudice aside, I think you'll enjoy a fine and exciting remake. To be sure, probably no one can duplicate the shower scene, but that aside, I found the movie first rate. I think color does not distract from it all that much. I would think that for those who have not seen the original, it will be viewed as a pretty scary movie. The psychobabble at the end was not all that bad for that sort of thing. The DVD version is quite good although the menu is difficult to navigate,
Rating:
Summary: psycho remake a winner
Review: when i heard about gus van sant wanting to remake psycho i thought it was stupid and pointless.but then i remembered the remake of hamlet and henry viii so i decided to give the new psycho a chance.i thought this was the best remake i've ever seen.anne heche was wonderful as marion crane.vince vaughan could never equal anthony perkins potrayal of norman,instead he makes it his own.jullianne moore gave the best performance as lila. i wish there was more of her in the film.other standout performances were william h.macy,phillip baker hall and robert forester.the worst performance was by viggo mortesen. he was awful all wrong as sam,marions boyfriend.van sants direction is good paying homage to a brilliant director.this movie is a winner!
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Film
Review: this movie was excellent. the critics bashed this film before they even saw it. i am a teen who hates stupid slasher films that have no good story or character development, and thought this was a more psychological film than anything else. the characters were really put together well (better than original), and the director put a few needed touches, and updated the script to make it more nineties. the acting was great, all adding they're own different takes on the characters. i thought it was really fun, and would think this was better than the original if i didn't know what was going to happen. the extras for this dvd are great. especially the commentary by Vaughn, Van Sant, and Heche, often hilarious. And to the review above: the masterbating scene was necessary in relation to norman's desire for marion.
Rating: 
Summary: That the new Psycho does not equal the original in anyway .
Review: The only good thing that came out of this movie is that we learned that today's movie going public has to told what to see. In the original everything was implied and you have to imagine it. Plus, kids today have to be scared by blood and gore. None of that in this movie. Is that one of the many and I do mean many reasons this movie tanked.
Rating:
Summary: Van Sant's direction a tribute to the original
Review: This movie was terrific in that Gus Van Sant set out to tip his hat to Hitchcock, rather than "out-do" him with modern blood and guts. I can't help but admire the faithfulness to the original, while at the same time giving audiences the added visual verve of color and contemporary acting talent. Specifically, Vince Vaughn plays an exquisitely insane Norman Bates. Even his performance was, I thought, a tribute to Anthony Perkins. Anne Heche was wonderful as well. One of the real heroes of the film, performance-wise, was William H. Macy. His investigating-out-of-towner was expertly done. Also, it was a welcome surprise to see Robert Forster play the psychologist at the end of the film. All in all, a well-crafted re-make. Hats off to Gus Van Sant!
Rating:
Summary: don't believe all the bad reviews!
Review: there is really nothing to hate about this film. good acting, excellent cinematography, and a wonderful score. any fan of the original can appreciate this film. it's the same great story!
Rating: 
Summary: What's happening to this guy?
Review: Gus Van Sant has directed some very fine films ("Drugstore Cowboy" "To Die For" "My Own Private Idaho," and i'll admit it, "Good Will Hunting" wasn't too bad either). But what the hell is this? "Psycho" by Alfred Hitchcock is my favorite film, and the idea of remaking it did not offend me, but what did the was stiff acting and Van Sant's seeming lack of creativity (a first for him, unless you count "Good Will Hunting"). Heche and Vaughan sputter, they say their dialogue like they were reading it off a cue card. Vaughan is not menacing or threatening as Norman Bates, but a laughable idiot who does not emit any fear in the viewer whatsoever. Skip this ...
Rating:
Summary: An okay remake of an OK movie
Review: OK, what was that stock footage all about when Norman killed the detective? It showed a naked woman and a cow getting hit by a car. Overall this movie was okay, but it just shows how even though you think the old films are great for their time, they're not so great for OUR time. (although some classics, like All About Eve, could be successful even now if it was remade properly)
Rating:
Summary: Was it "Psycho" to attempt a remake?
Review: Skepticism mixed with a private anxiety is the best way I have of describing the contrasting feelings I first felt when I heard that Hollywood was attempting a remake of Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho." For anyone who has ever seen the original, it stands alone, a bright shining star amongst the immense library of cinematic masterpieces that Hollywood has served up over the years. Still, the idea was intriguing, and so I did not hesitate to attempt the remake. At the opening, I was both excited and exhilerated to see the original credits being re-created in true form, faithful down even to the motion in the title word "PSYCHO". I was distracted some by the change of camera photography, and the addition of some dialogue, though it may be attributed to an unedited version of Hitchcock's script-of that I cannot be sure. I guess I took offense initially to the portrayal of Norman Bates masturbating as he watched Marion Crane disrobe for her shower, but upon reflection, it began to make sense. In the 60's, voyeurism would have been considered completely unlawful-horrifying to anyone watching. Though it is still considered as much today, I don't think that it holds the shock value that a scene like that would have in the 60's. So, to give some of the shock back to the audience, the application of a new, revolting and repulsive act enabled some of that same "surprise" to be recaptured. I cannot say I agree with its addition, but I feel it did achieve the desired goal. After the shower sequence, the remainder of the film remained RELATIVELY faithful to the script, though large sections of the closing monologue, given by the psychiatrist, were cut from the script, which I found to be a disappointment. Also, the dialogue (and prop) updates were clumsy, leaving one to wonder who decided to mix the original script with the 90's inserts. Overall, I do feel the movie is worth the time and the money, but do not expect it to hold the same thrill that the original Psycho has for nearly 40 years. Its a copy, an imitation, and like so many things, you cannot replicate perfection...even with better technology.
|
