Psycho (1998)

[HorrorMovieFan]

"Psycho (199 8 )........This is, per se, an above average film but why was it made? It's impossible to treat it as a thing unto itself because it is an almost shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock classic. You can't watch it without the 1960 film nudging into your consciousness. How can we credit Van Sandt and his associates with anything except deciding to use different actors, slightly different sets, and color? Anne Heche is attractive but lacks Janet Leigh's solid determination in the character of "Marion", and doesn't project anxiety the way Leigh did. The scene with the CHP officer looking in her car window illustrates the weakness in the role. In the original, the officer asks, "Is there something wrong?" Leigh: "Of course not. Am I acting as if something were wrong?" The officer hesitates before replying: "Well, frankly, yes." That exchange is omitted from the remake for the simple reason that Heche isn't nervous enough.The worst change, without a doubt, is the substitution of Vince Vaughn for Anthony Perkins. It may not be Vaughn's fault. Who could match Perkins in the role? Perkins is twitchy, bird-like, long-necked, cloaked in an externally charming exterior that masks an inner vacuum. His every move (eating candy corn, with his adam's apple bobbing) and every utterance, the faint laugh, the arid chuckle, is spot on. He just can't be improved upon. Vaughn brings to the role the presence of a short-haired beefy guy who was just discharged as a Lance Corporal from the U. S. Army. To suggest his psychosis all he can do is superimpose a maniacal giggle on top of what appears otherwise a perfectly normal Norman in speech and manner.The direction deserves a few comments. I don't see what it adds to the story when we see Norman masturbating while peeping in on Anne Heche. I don't object to it, I just wonder why it's there. Also, I suppose in order to impress us with how much color adds to the visual experience, Van Sant seems to have missed a bit of Hitchcock's more subtle stuff. Heche is given underwear of all different colors -- green, pink, orange, etc. The point is that in the original, when the traveling camera first peeks through the window of the Phoenix hotel it captures Janet Leigh in bed wearing a pure white half slip and a white bra. Later, after she has stolen the money, we see her in her underwear again -- this time both her slip and bra are black. Tis a small thing, but Hitch's own. At that, the idea of shooting in color might not have been bad except that the black-and-white shooting of the original was superb. The color and odd lighting effects in this version turn the ordinary, dull, and subliminally ominous motel into something that looks like it belongs in the seedier part of Las Vegas. That murder in the shower, in both movies, was a big improvement over Robert Bloch's original novel, by the way. Even here, Van Sant's movie gives us excess. There is more blood and more bare flesh. And where Hitchcock closed in first on the blood circling the bathtub drain and dissolved to Marian's blankly open eye, then pulled the camera back slowly to reveal her face, he rotated his camera from a slight tilt to the proper vertical, giving the viewer a sense of not just disbelief at the murder, but a dizzying disbelief. Van Sant doesn't tilt his camera a delicate 10 or 20 degrees as Hitchcock did. He practically twirls it on its axis. So who was this movie made for? I'd have to guess for kids who are too young to know about the original and who don't like movies in black and white? Kids who are hoping to see another ordinary slasher movie? Whatever the case, even though this is a carbon copy of the 60's classic, it still is a nicely done movie.

5/10

[Rusted]

It's rubbish. Absolutely pointless. Nothing good to say about it at all.

[Vlad The Impaler]

Originally Posted by rusted31

It's rubbish. Absolutely pointless. Nothing good to say about it at all.

I don't think I've even made it through an entire viewing. I watched the first four back-to-back not so long ago. Obviously, I love the original and all three sequels are solidly entertaining.

[Heathen]

Did the remake's casting agent find more work?

[RomeroCarpenter Fan]

good cast but a few just weren't up to par with their performances. not a bad remake, but why was it even made?

[Mogwai]

It's time to start the great 2012 debate about who should have reprised Perkins' role as the iconic Norman Bates instead of Vince Vaughn.
My vote: Kevin Spacey.

[Heathen]

I would've preferred a spoofless "inner city" remake with an all-black cast.

[Mogwai]

Originally Posted by Heathen

I would've preferred a spoofless "inner city" remake with an all-black cast.

You should check out Ax Em (sic), it's often looked down upon but it's better than the Psycho remake and features more "yo momma" jokes.

[Heathen]

Originally Posted by Mogwai

You should check out Ax Em (sic), it's often looked down upon but it's better than the Psycho remake and features more "yo momma" jokes.

I've been meaning to ask you, Mogwai, to make a mash-up of the Psycho remake and Big Momma's House, with Martin Lawrence as Norman. I'm sure your non-BD schedule is fairly hectic, but I would certainly appreciate your time and effort. Thanks in advance.