Rating: 
Summary: experimental, but incidental
Review: It should have been an interesting experiment, if nothing else; no one in history had taken a brilliant and reknown film and remade it, especially remade it identically to the original. It turned out, however, to be the most boring two hours of 1998. Many have stated that indie wunderkind Gus Van Sant deserves praise for trying something different, but how often do we praise a bad idea (which is what this was)? Van Sant took a film that was part of America's cultural vocabulary and tried, I suppose, to bring it back to the forefront. But the fact remains that if the original was perfect (as I and many others agree), what purpose does a new, identical version serve? As for the finished product, I agree with Roger Ebert: I felt as though I were watching a sub-standard community theatre troupe perform a Shakespearean play. The lines were there, but Van Sant's experiment proved that great cinema is made between the lines, that simply copying a great filmmaker's every move doesn't mean that you can make as good a movie, and definately not improve upon it, as he apparently tried to do in his baffling insertions. All in all, I was completely disappointed upon evacuation of the theater, but I did realize something that gave me some comfort. I saw the movie with a friend; I had seen the original Psycho, he had not, and knew nothing about it. After leaving the theater, he had a serious case of the creeps. For all of Van Sant's incompetance, Hitchcock's brilliance shown through enough to disturb my friend. I read an editorial that said Hitchcock had directed this movie from the grave. I found that to be mostly true, and, had I too not realized this, I would have been infuriated by the simple thought of this movie. Now, however, I find that it is the sweetest revenge of all that Hitchcock was still able to scare audience through a cinematic failure.
Rating: 
Summary: Most people missed the point.
Review: This movie is brilliant! So was the first version. Not so much for the impressive technical feats like the opening shot or the shower scene, as the surprise twist of the plot which sets the audience up for one plotline and star and then throws them out for a totally different story and set of characters. Of course that only works the first time you see the movie. What makes this version exceptional is that it goes beyond the the normal contexts of film entirely. It isn't about Marion Crane or Norman Bates or a robbery or a gratuitous murder at all. It's about having seen & analyzed & deconstructed Psycho to death, until every last one of us is the definitive film critic who knows the exact number of setups in the shower scene. This film completely voids film "criticism". In no way is this movie a "remake" _ it's a deliberate impersonation of Psycho, much in the same spirit as Cindy Sherman's impersonations in her photographs. A welcome breakthrough.
Rating: 
Summary: Collected dust in the bargain bin by the dozens
Review: It made it from the full-priced theaters to the $3.99 "pre-viewed" video bargain-bin at our local Blockbuster store inside of 3 months. 'Nuff said.
Rating:
Summary: Re-inventing the wheel
Review: When I first heard that Psycho was going to be remade scene for scene and word for word, the first thought that went through my head was "why?" The main reason it seems, was to introduce a classic to a new generation of viewers.This is not the first time a Hitchcock film has been remade. In 1934 Alfred Hitchcock directed "The Man Who Knew Too Much". In 1956 the film was remade and directed by... Alfred Hitchcock! The remake was not as good as the original. In 1987 a remake of "Suspicion" was made. It too was inferior to the original. And now we have "Psycho"... I first saw the original "Psycho" when I was 12. It was one of my favourite films and it got me interested in Hitchcock's career. This 1998 remake is not a patch on the original. Why did the Bates mansion look different? The one in the original looked much more spooky. When Anthony Perkins played Norman Bates, the character was someone I actually felt sorry for. Vince Vaughn's interpretation made him look like an oaf. With the shower scene did anyone notice there was no blood on the knife? I can't imagine what Hitchcock would have thought if he had been alive to see this. This remake is supposed to be a tribute to the Master of Suspense. It's like someone re-painting the Mona Lisa as a tribute to Leonardo da Vinci.
Rating:
Summary: BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD
Review: There is a saying, "They don't make them like that anymore." And I hope they don't make them like this movie anymore.
Rating:
Summary: The worst remake that I have ever seen in my entire life!
Review: No wonder this "shot-for-shot remake" was so controversial! I had some big problems with this movie for the following reasons: 1.)THE CASTING CHOICES! - Anne Heche as Marion Crane? Juliette Lewis as Marion's sister? VINCE VAUGHN as NORMAN BATES? What were they thinking? The only decent casting choice in the entire film was William H. Macy as Arbogast. 2.)THE SHOWER SCENE - It is in no way like the original! There is TOO MUCH blood and nudity, and the way it is cut just makes the whole scene worse! Also...(see #3) 3.)THE SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES - Okay. What's the deal with the rolling thunder clouds in the shower scene? How about that cow in the road and the naked lady lying on the bed during Arbogast's death scene as he is falling down the stairs? There is no signifigance. 4.)THE PEEPHOLE SCENE - Was Norman Bates doing what I think he was doing? Okayyyyy............... Overall, this movie was a waste of film, and it should have never been made. Gus Van Sant is a great director, but lets hope that he never does anything like this ever again!
Rating:
Summary: Gus Van Sant's Psycho
Review: When gus van sant announced that he was making a shot for shot remake of psycho i thought it would be a strong nominee "The blunder of the century" award. No! it is not. Gus van sant's movie is not a bad movie it just looks very bad if you compare it to the orginal psycho, because it is Impossible to do justice to a remake of a film like Psycho. The new psycho is by no doubt the best you could do for a remake of a hitchcork film that is why i gave it 2 stars. I can understand all those negative responces and criticall roasting it got. Just dont compare it to the orginal one and you would say why it is not that bad at all. But still I dont understand why anybody wanted to remake psycho when it is still fresh.They could have released the orginal one after some film surgery just like star wars.
Rating:
Summary: Terminally boring...and predictable!
Review: If you're going to redo Psycho, don't do it this way! I mean the movie is a shot-for-shot muddling of the classic...with an exception of the subliminal messages planted in the death of the detective(who didn't laugh at the cow?)this movie is devoid of any creativity what-so-ever! Vince Vaughn actually makes Norman Bates seem normal! Well...not really, but he is normal compared to Anthony Perkins perfect performance as that wacko. Casting Pee-wee Herman as Norman would have been genius. So anyways...avoid this and stick with the original.
Rating: 
Summary: A gnashing of teeth
Review: It's compelling to think about why Van Sant would remake a film like Psycho--one with a devoted and vociferous fan base, acclaimed as a masterpiece of its genre. What could he do right--or better? As his reward: the increasingly out-of-touch Leonard Maltin describes the film as a pointless, tainted insult, a view shared by most critics and fans. The film sputters at the box office and encourages only meagre discussion of its fantastic premise--why would anyone do this?
I tried to look at this movie with new eyes but found that impossible--inevitably I compared it not to the original Hitchcock "Psycho" (which I admit to not remembering well), but to the ideal (albeit completely fabricated) masterpiece of moviemaking suspense "Psycho!" I had constructed in my mind out of 5-star reviews, "10 Best" lists, and hyperbolic exclamatory pullquotes. Nothing can compare to the cinematic perfection I'd conjured up against Gus Van Sant, Anne Heche, and particularly Vince Vaughn. This remake was a disaster. Heche, maddeningly unavailable, wears psychedelic cutey-pie dresses; Vaughn masturbates (complete with "slapping" sounds) to the hole in his parlor wall; we see a boobie(!); modern devices aplenty! Some of the holdovers from the original seem anachronistic and quaint (the voiceovers in the car as Heche drives away, the broad "holy cow" face her boss makes when he notices her on the street), suggesting that the actors and the filmmakers struggled under the greatness of the original structure.
But how very modern. How very acute we are to find an insult in a tribute. How subtle we are to scoff at hucksters and showmen. As one movie fan said of the original, "You have to give it a chance, and if your not easily scared don't think it will scare the pance off you. AND SEE THIS BEFOR THE REMAKE." Credit Saul Bass for a well designed movie, but this is the only version of Psycho I own. It's my Psycho, and it's an appropriate Psycho. Van Sant should remake it every 15-20 years for the rest of my life.
For those who care, the DVD looks and sounds great.
Rating:
Summary: Pretty boring!
Review: I haven't seen Hitchcocks version from 1960, so I can't compare these two. But this one was boring. The killings were so fake, that no one will ever believe. I didn't know if I should cry or laugh. The movie was so predictable that it's a shame. The only thing which is keeping me from rating it 1 star, is Vince Vaughn. He's a great actor, and I think he can be proud of this one. Rated R for...hey! what is it rated R for? Don't ask me.
|
