Psycho

Rating:
Summary: Very poor
Review: I guess when you cast a bunch of Hollywood's elite to star in a remake of a classic 60's horror flick, you can't really expect much. It seems like the director (Gus Van Idiot Savant or whatever) just wanted to bulk it up and add more glitz and glamour, while meanwhile the original was a humble, modest, bold effort. Vince Vaughn is the most unconvincing psychopath on film ever, his personality did not work for this movie, and seeing him in his other movies makes this one a little awkward. Julianne Moore is usually a superb actress, I don't know why she would involve herself in this piece of cheese, I mean, did they REALLY have walkman's back then? The only plus side is Anne Heche who fits her roll very well, it's just a shame she had to die off 30 minutes into the movie, making this one a true "sleeper" indeed.

Rating:
Summary: Similar too the 1960 movie, I think.
Review: I've only seen the 1960-Hitchcock Psycho once some years ago, so I don't remember many details but I get the impression that this remake is quite similar. I think it's a good movie, not as good as the original, but it's good and I think it's a little underrated. Of course, you can ask the question what the point is in making a remake of a very good classical movie, but, on the other hand, why not? I think Van Sant did it quite good, with great help from good actors, Like Julianne Moore, Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche.

Rating:
Summary: You'd Be Crazy to Miss Vince Vaughn's 'Psycho'
Review: As the title of my review suggests this is Vince Vuaghn's Psycho, not Alfred Hitchcock's, not even Gus Van Sant's, he's the key component that makes his film worthy of repeat viewing. He plays Norman Bates to such eerie perfection that I'm sure would've made Anthony Perkins pround. It's not to say it's a better performance, certainly it's not subtle, just more accurate. Vaughn's Norman slips in and out of conciousness, both figuratively and literally. He lets on to the fact that he's a lost soul looking for acceptance anywhere he can find it, even in a stranger, a passer-by who he finds attractive and in one particularly revealing moment, masturbates to. Perkin's Bates was much more friendly and outgoing, the type of guy you'd like to have coffee with, not as threatening and some may think that in itself makes his performance the better of the two, an argument I agree with - to an extent. I can't say which version I perfer because both are thoroughly entertaining and each has it's own claim to supremacy. It's a generational argument that likely will go unanswered though the orginal will likely be remembered with more fondness if simply for the fact that is was so groundbreaking for it's time. The only gripe I have with this remake is that it's little more than a shot-for-shot retelling of the movie rather than reverting back to the book which was in my opinion the better than the movie to begin with. We already know what's going to happen so why not spare us the gimmacks that we so inovative forty years ago and beef up the story a bit more? You'd think Joe Steffano who wrote the book and both scripts would want his orignal vision of this story to be seen but instead treds the same farmilar ground, not wanting to step on any toes. But despite my dissappointment in the writing, the performances themselves make this movie a must-see. And I strongly suggest DVD owners listen to the commentary track as Vince reverts back to his Swingers mode to stealing his co-star and director's thunder.

Rating:
Summary: Movies Like These Are Why We Hate Remakes!!!
Review: Not only is the acting in this movie sub-par, but the plot doesn't go anywhere new that the classic hasn't already gone. There are too many special effects added that didn't change my view on the movie at all. This is just another cheesy remake of a horror classic to try to make money at the box office. Try to avoid this film as much as possible.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting novelty effort that ultimately fails.
Review: Mention the Alfred Hitchcock film "Psycho" (1962) and everyone immediately thinks SHOWER SCENE, right? It is, after all, one of the most brilliantly mounted sequences in motion picture history. But a few days ago, when my partner Greg & I were fortunate enough to catch "Psycho" on American Movie Classics, I began thinking about the scene-by-scene, word-for-word remake of the film by Gus Van Sant that had been released in 1998. Since there is so much more to "Psycho" than that famous SHOWER SCENE, my curiosity about the remake was suddenly piqued ... so the other night we ferreted out a DVD copy of the new version and cozied up on the couch for a pleasant evening of film criticism.

Now, although I've always been a big fan of Hitchcock, I'm not one of those hand-wringing reviewers below who considers his work so sacrosanct that it must NOT be touched (though I admit I'd probably feel similarly about the films of Stanley Kubrick. <blush>). Gus Van Sant has every bit of respect and admiration for Hitchcock's directorial vision, which is apparently why he followed the storyboard, script, score, and timing of the original so faithfully. To the best of my knowledge this is the first time someone has attempted a remake of an older film in such a fashion, and what results is quite fascinating.

Granted, Van Sant has taken a few liberties. Note the first scene inside the hotel where Marion Crane and her boytoy Sam are having their tawdry affair, and listen to sounds of passionate boinking going on in one of the adjacent rooms. Note the occasional flurry of surreal images meant to indicate what's going on in the demented mind of Norman Bates. Note how Marion's sister Lila (played to vulnerable, feminine perfection by Vera Miles in the original) has been transformed by Julianne Moore into a kickass tomboy. And speaking of casting, one must definitely note how Vince Vaughn (as Norman Bates) doesn't attempt to resurrect the twitchy mannerisms of Anthony Perkins, but instead succeeds fairly well at making the role his own.

Ultimately, however, Gus Van Sant's remake of "Psycho" fails, and only because Van Sant is so faithful to the original film. The biggest problem is that the dialogue and pacing of the 1962 version simply don't work in 1998. The montage in which Detective Arbogast is checking from one hotel to the next in his search for Marion is particularly anachronistic. Overall it's a really interesting and worthwhile exercise in novelty filmmaking ... but if I was going to sit down and watch "Psycho" with someone who had never seen it, I wouldn't even consider watching this updated version. It's the original, in all it's glorious black & white, that works so much better in the context of 1962.

As for the big SHOWER SCENE, well, I must admit it was still pretty creepy ... heh heh ...

Rating:
Summary: A BIG DISAPPOINTING HOMAGE TO THE SUPREME CLASSIC
Review: THIS MOVIE IS A GOOD MOVIE IF EVERYONE DID NOT KNOW ITS ENDING. THERE ARE CERTAIN ELEMENTS THAT MAKE THIS REMAKE INFERIOR. THE HOTEL SEQUENCE BETWEEN SAM AND MARION WAS VERY TEMPID. THE NUDITY FACTOR WAS NOT CALL FOR. WHEN MY FAVORITE PART OF THE MOVIE CAME I WAS VERY PLEASED BUT THE INFAMOUS SHOWER SEQUENCE HAD A LOT PROBLEMS FOR ME. WHY WAS FOOTAGE OF STORM CLOUDS? BUT A PLUS,IT WAS MORE GORIER. AND "MOTHER" WAS NOT AS SCARY AS THE ORIGINAL "MOTHER".BUT THERE ARE SOME GOOD POINTS ABOUT THIS MOVIE. THE CASTING WAS GOOD. THE SHOCKING ENDING WAS CHANGED FOR THE SOMEWHAT BETTER. AND THE UPDATED DIALOGUE WAS OK.OVERALL, THE PEOPLE BEHIND THIS PROJECT SHOULD FOLLOWING THIS GOLDEN RULE: NEVER REMAKE A SUPER CLASSIC LIKE PSYCHO!!!

Rating:
Summary: Psycho
Review: I like both versions of Psycho. If this one were in blck and white like the original, it would have been great! I think Vince Vaughn could have used some improvement (Anthony Perkins was born to play Norman Bates). Viggo Mortenson was good. William H. Macy was excellent (he made a better private investigator). Julianne Moore was excellent (if only she didn't carry around that Walkman). Anne Heche did the best as Marion Craine. The extra nudity in the shower scene was unessesary. Heche recited her lines well, though. This remake was pretty good, but hey, what did you expect when Gus Van Sant remade Psycho?

Rating:
Summary: An embarrassment.
Review: No one-word review could be more accurate, I reckon. This film was meant to be a tribute to Hitchcock's eternal and ageless masterpiece and instead it came across as a painfully pathetic film that was virtually unwatchable. I always thought a masterpiece should never be remade because the result could never be nothing short of an insult. I couldn't get past the infamous shower scene, because I just couldn't believe what I was seeing. It was, in fact, shot word for word, scene by scene. Plus new "innovating" scenes that really made this film fall really low. I always have said that there can only be one person who could play the role of Norman Bates effectively and that was/is Anthony Perkins. Forty years ago, when Hitchcock released his film, times were way different. You didn't need to spill excessive amounts of blood on screen or use sex or vulgarity to conquer an audience.

Well, forty years later, times have changed, have changed aplenty. One scene in particular made me sick in this new version of Psycho, and it convinced me not to watch it any further. When Norman is watching Marion in the bathroom, you can hear him unzip his pants...and (well, guess what he's doing as she's stripping her clothes off?)the whole film was extremely sick. Not sick as in gross, but just a sheerly disrespectful version of a film that should NEVER have been redone.

It may have been an attempt at a tribute to the best suspense film ever made but the end result is a shameful, disrespectful film that is nothing other than a waste of time.

Rating:
Summary: Good call, Gus
Review: Poor casting, ordinary acting, a few unfortunate creative inclusions... a waste of time, money and celluloid. Some films should not be remade.

Rating:
Summary: Not bad
Review: If i had not seen the original staring Anthony Perkins than I would have been blown away. And I think people got the wrong idea the makers of this weren't trying to improve Psycho they were honoring it with good actors in good roles. William H. Macy is dazzling as the P.I. Arboghast (I'm not sure how to spell it) and Anne Hasche does a nice job, as well. Well worth the watch if you enjoyed the original.