Psycho

Rating:
Summary: Why?
Review: Why? Why? WHY? Why remake a classic horror film? That means remaking it with exactly the same screenshots, lines, right down to the same camara angles used in the original. The only difference is that this one's in color. So if they're basicly the same then this will be just as good, right? Wrong! I don't know exactly what it is, but the remake just doesn't have any of the style and flair of the first.
I was bored while I watched this movie (because I watched it before the original.) The remake of Psycho actually made it into the top 100 celebrity opps! I dunno, I guess I'm not really one for remakes (but I do like the Fly (1986)) esp if it's a remake of a really good movie. Most remake are, because no one wants to remake a bad movie, even though bad movies are the ones they actually SHOULD be remaking.
Don't buy this movie. Well, I don't know, if you love it then you can get it. But the 1960 version is way better. The acting was also better. Nothing beats Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates, or Janet Leigh (mother of Jamie Lee Curtis) as Marion Crane. Also I think the film just 'works' better in black and white.
I'm giving the remake two stars because it's still a great story. But the question still remains-why?

Rating:
Summary: CLOSER TO 3 1/2 STARS
Review: THE ORIGINAL "PSYCHO" IS A 5 STAR MASTERPIECE, AN UNDENIABLE CLASSIC. SO IN SHORT THIS REMAKE IS ULTIMATLY A WASTE OF TIME FOR MANY. HOWEVER, I FOUND GUS VAN SANT'S VERSION TO BE ALMOST IDENTICAL TO HITCHCOCK'S. THE DIFFERENCES ARE SO MINOR THAT THEY ARE HARDLY WORTH MENTIONING. SURE IT'S IN COLOR AND IT'S MILDLY UPDATED BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S VERY CLOSE. FORGIVE ME FOR SAYING THIS BUT IT'S LIKE THE ORIGINAL IS THE FATHER AND THE REMAKE IS THE SON. REPLACING ANTHONY PERKINS AS NORMAN BATES IS VINCE VAUGHN. I LIKE VAUGHN AND HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH HIS PORTRAYAL. HE WAS DISTURBINGLY CREEPY JUST AS PERKINS WAS. AS MARION CRANE WE GET LOVABLE LESBO ANNE HECHE. SHE WAS NICE AS THE BRIEF LEADING LADY THAT ENDS UP MOONING THE BATHROOM CEILING. I ENJOYED DANNY ELFMAN'S MUSIC SCORE IT WAS AS CHILLING AS THE ORIGINAL SCORE. YOU CAN'T GO WRONG WITH ELFMAN. SO CHECK IN, RELAX AND DON'T EXPECT THE ORIGINAL. OH AND REMEMBER, LOCK THE BATHROOM DOOR...

Rating:
Summary: Watch the Original Instead
Review: The original Psycho by Alfred Hitchcock is a genuine classic in all of film history and is flawless in execution. Then why the re-make? To impress ignorant kids who think that whatever's old must be "cheesy" and "corny"? What do they know? This re-make is completely pointless as it re-inacts the original Psycho scene by scene, except take out the passion and brilliance that made the original the masterpiece it is. Put in instead a glossy, polished appearance that steals the claustrophobic and tense atmosphere of the silver screen which made the original such a gripping experience, throw in actors who don't even work right for their roles (i.e. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates), and put in a pretentious diector looking to cash in on younger viewers than to make an artistic statement. This movie is soulless and doesn't even deserve to be rented out. Classics should not be re-made! Ever!

Rating:
Summary: WHY DO THEY MAKE REMAKES WHEN THEY CAN'T TOP THE FIRST!
Review: If I could give this zero stars all the way I would. One question: Why oh why would anyone want to remake a classic knowing full well it could never rise to the standards of the original?? Hollywood does this over and over again only to fall and sink in the mud pit which is exactly what this horrendous piece of garbage does!

Who could possibly match Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh from the original?? Anthony Perkins and Norman Bates are one in the same person's mind just as Vivien Leigh will always be Scarlett O'Hara, and Judy Garland will always be Dorothy.

That said, this film is a stinkeroo which I only managed to watch out of curiosity...Amazon made a mistake when I ordered the original 1960 classic and sent me this updated version. Remaking Psycho would be like remaking "Gone With The WInd", "The Wizard of Oz" and any other remarkable film from an era in Hollywood long past.

Those associated with making this bomb should be ashamed.

Given the fact that this movie totally bombed at the box office...well.....it seems whoever got the idea to make remake this got his just desserts. Advice: Don't tamper with perfection. Another piece of advice: Stay away from this disaster and get yourself a copy of the 1960 original masterpiece!

Rating:
Summary: Forget the shower, just avoid the movie
Review: Everyone now knows the story of "Psycho". Disturbed young man Norman Bates (this time played by Vince Vaughn) entertains runaway fugitive Marion Crane (now Anne Hache), then murders her in the shower. Except that it is really his split personality Mother that is doing all the slashing. Director Gus Van Sant, fresh from the superhot "Good Will Hunting", was given free reign in the Universal archives for a remake. He chose Alfred Hitchcock's infamous horror classic "Psycho". In theory it was a good pick, "Psycho" was a very populor movie, even thirty eight years after it's release (and still today), so a remake probably sounded like a sure thing. But, what should have happened was van Sant should have made it a modern version with present day values and attitudes (and he did in one scene). But instead he chose reshoot it shot by shot exactly the same as Hitchcock's movie. So now there is absolutly nothing new or worth while about it. The only minute differences is 1) a half of frame nude shot of Hache, 2) more blood (though not too much), 3) some nonsense images in Norman's mind while he is killing, and 4) Norman is pleasuring himself while watching Heche undress. Actually that one dose have a sense of acuracy to it. The root of Norman's madness is supposed to be sex based, so that dose seem to fit. As far as technical details, all the characters were wearing awful cloths that wasn't at envouge in 1960 or 1998; more like outfits from the mid to late '70s. The actors all seemed to be over doing it, and that is a shame, because I like all the actors in the film; Julianne Moore (Lila Crane), Viggo Morganson (Samual), William H. Macy (Arbogahst) all were way over acting it, as if they weren't taking the project seriuosly. Vince Vaughn is the most guilty of the over acting craze, his Norman seemed very off kilter even when we first meet him. This could have been a decent excersice in comparing how much sinseabilities have change in almost 40 years, but van Sant messed it up badly.

Rating:
Summary: Way better than the first!!
Review: this movie should have been the real psycho instead of that sorry, cheesy, good for nothing piece of crap of the first psycho...lets face it,, the original was good back in the day,still i dont understand why people tend to say "original is best"..well, that is not true...one of the things that i like about the new psycho is the trailer that shows the eye along with an owl flying away ,it really looked creepy and original....the shower scene was excellent,,it shows it like it was meant to be...not with that silly tune the first movie used has....i always support re-makes because in a way,,,they help correct the mistakes that originals have...in other words,,they take the corny stuff out, and give it a new gloss....the fact is THE OLDER THE MOVIE THE CHEESIER IT IS like it or not...Then you have this other type of people that compare the movie to the book....ENTERTAINMENT IS NOT ENGLISH LITERATURE 101, GET IT OVER YOUR HEADS!!!! its just a movie......I give the new psycho a 5 and recommend it to anybody......

Rating:
Summary: Better than the original!
Review: I never was a big fan of the original, black-and-white 'Psycho', mailnly because I've never been able to get into black-and-white movies. I'm surprised this isn't a more common problem, but I have a complete inability to suspend my disbelief at all - I mean, the world is in color! I feel like I'm watching television on Mars. I did like all three 'Psycho' sequels, and feel they improved on the poor plotting and sketchiness of the first.

When I heard that there was going to be a new, all-color remake of 'Psycho', I was pretty excited. Finally, an all-color version to take its rightful place amongst the classics (II, III, and IV). And I wasn't disappointed - from the first frame, it was evident that I was seeing a much more complete, much more scary, and much more colorful film than the first. I won't tell you how many nights I went without sleep once I saw this, but I will say there is now a rear-view mirror in my shower.

Gus Van Sant has done what I've always wanted someone to do - make the REAL 'Psycho'. I'd love to see him tackle II, III, and IV next, and see what he does with them - but he better not do them in black and white!

Rating:
Summary: It seemed like a good idea at the time....
Review: I think there is nothing wrong with the idea of remaking classic films, using the original script. After all, Broadway is always revisiting classic plays and muscials, so why not revivals of certain films. However, the most successful revivals are those that bring something new or different to the work. Remaking it with a "concept". That's the problem with this reworking of "Psycho". Gus Van Sant brings absolutely nothing new to the film. He is so faithful that there are no surprises... no new "touches" that make you appreciate the script even more.

And, unfortunately, none of the actors seem that interested (aside from Anne Heche, I think) in bringing anything new to these established characters. Vince Vaughn, especially... He tries so hard to "copy" Tony Perkins that I couldn't help but sit there comparing the two (of which there is no contest). It would be like watching a revival of "A Streetcar Named Desire" with the actor playing Stanley trying to mimic Brando, instead of putting his own stamp on the role.

I hope the idea of remaking classics doesn't stop here. Just use this "Psycho" as a lesson of what not to do.


Rating:
Summary: Before you slam it, open your mind!
Review: too many people listen to other people about this remake and say that the original was the greatest and theyre idiots for trying to bring it back up. that just pisses me off that someone can judge a movie before they see it. if you judge a movie before you see it, your mind will trick you into believing what you had already, moronically, thought up. open your mind to this movie and you might enjoy it!
now, for my actual review. i watched hitchcocks '60 version right before this one--back to back.i must say that while the idea of hitchcocks movie seeping into the publics head in 1960 is creepy and entertaining, nonetheless i enjoyed it for only about 3 and a half stars of five. this version on the other hand, is only different in color, actors, and literally a VERY FEW variations. in my opinion, this remake had better acting--except the guy who played the detective that first showed in the store with marions sister/boyfriend(that guy was an awful actor). still, the few variations that this film made, are not ones to ruin it. scene by scene, and almost line by line, this remake is simply a correction to the original. you know why i love this one so much? two words: VINCE VAUGHN. the editorial review posed vaughn as a less horrifying bates than the boy-next-door image created by the orignal anthony perkins. i disagree. perkins came across in no way as a true psycho. he had his own way of acting and he knew no other way(or though it seemed). vaughn caught my attention with more creepiness than max schreck in nosferatu! yes, perkins was less likely to be a psycho by first impression, but so was vaughn. he struck as a little strange, but in no way harmless. still, when the time came, he fit into the psycho image more than anyone could have. just watch his movements and expressions from beginning to end--genious.
thats why you need to consider this film as a possibilty of greatness you close minded robots...

Rating:
Summary: Too mean of this revision
Review: I think people who use Amazon.com are often too mean and just closed minded. Take this film for instance... an overall 2.5 stars. When I bought this on a hunch and then seen the rating I almost returned it without watching it. But, thankfully, I kept it thanks to recommendations I received that it was good. It may not be the original but I recognize the actors and feel comfortable with this version. Within the first 15 minutes of the film the viewer is automatically pulled into a paranoid matrix at which they ride along with the main actors. Why give this film less than an okay rating? Just because you did not think it should exist?