All Critics (76)
|
Top Critics (16)
|
Fresh (27)
|
Rotten (46)
|
DVD (16)
Contains nothing to outrage or offend partisans of the original, yet neither does it stand to add much to their appreciation.
Van Sant clearly knows that if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and his own smooth touch is neatly sympathetic with his predecessor's.
The movie is an invaluable experiment in the theory of cinema, because it demonstrates that a shot-by-shot remake is pointless; genius apparently resides between or beneath the shots, or in chemistry that cannot be timed or counted.
Vaughn and Heche bring energy and freshness to the parts originated by Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh. Heche is so good, in fact, and so frisky and watchable in her role, that after her grisly demise in the shower you miss her for a long time.
This is a lifeless, workmanlike project; all tension has been leeched away. Also, it's in color.
It remains the most structurally elegant and sneakily playful of thrillers!
Already my mother and I mourn the day when some AVID editor will dare to digitally tweak Vertigo, spinning it into a virtual romantic comedy starring computer-directed replicas of Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.
...the Hitchcock film relied for its effects on originality and creativity. Van Sant's remake substitutes rote repetition and cliches that have long since lost their value.
Psycho doesn't do much for Van Sant, and he doesn't do much for Psycho.
Vaughn's Norman Bates is much inferior because he lacks the natural neurosis of Anthony Perkins.
Deserves closer consideration than it received.
Hitchcock probably wouldn't tell this story if he was making films today, and he certainly wouldn't tell it this way, with internal 'voices', back projection, minimal nudity and violence.
The movie doesn't stink. The performances are good, potentially great, especially Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates, but he owns a scene just for doing that psychotic giggle of his.
A lot of people may not get the point of recreating a work such as Psycho. I didn't get it, until I saw the film.
Personally, I found the remake weaker than the original (which was only vaguely interesting anyway; then again, it's pretty much the same movie).
To my absolute astonishment, I enjoyed the remake more than the original.
Gus Vant Sant has remade Alfred Hitchcock's classic slasher film with so much reverence and so little originality that it is not clear what the point is.
It's surprising to note that this film, mostly well-acted, is somewhat lacking on the technical side, which is what Hollywood usually does best these days.
More Critic Reviews
Top Critic
