Psycho - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Psycho Reviews

Page 1 of 4
January 1, 2000
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.
Full Review | Original Score: 1.5/4
January 1, 2000
This is a lifeless, workmanlike project; all tension has been leeched away. Also, it's in color.
Full Review | Original Score: 1.5/4
April 2, 2005
Personally, I found the remake weaker than the original (which was only vaguely interesting anyway; then again, it's pretty much the same movie).
Read More | Original Score: 2/5
January 1, 2000
Van Sant has cranked up the realism about 20 points, but somehow what he achieves for the effort is a larger sense of banality!
September 22, 2007
Psycho doesn't do much for Van Sant, and he doesn't do much for Psycho.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/5
January 1, 2000
So much of Van Sant's 'new' version of the classic remains the same that you sit there shaking your head, mumbling, why, oh, why?
October 23, 2013
The cast is fantastic, sure, but they're wasted in a sea of redundancy.
February 9, 2006
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.
January 1, 2000
Even with Hitchcock's shot list and a visual record of the crime, Van Sant can't come up with anything more than a wan tribute to the master, proving it takes more than a good storyboard to make a film work.
Full Review | Original Score: 5/10
January 1, 2000
Es mejor que las nuevas generaciones vayan a la tienda de videos y renten la versión original
Full Review | Original Score: 2/4
May 31, 2002
Gus Van Sant assumiu um trabalho ingrato: quando as cenas funcionam, em seu filme, a responsabilidade é de Hitchcock. Quando falham, a culpa é sua.
Full Review | Original Score: 3/5
January 1, 2000
Less a remake and more a scene-by-scene reconstruction, with all of the original dialogue intact.
Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/4
January 1, 2000
The movie lacks the chutzpah to even be a travesty.
January 1, 2000
The film is polished when it should be edgy and impersonal when it should be seductive.
April 25, 2013
failed project
Full Review | Original Score: D
August 13, 2007
Vaughn's Norman Bates is much inferior because he lacks the natural neurosis of Anthony Perkins.
Read More | Original Score: 4/10
January 1, 2000
Vince Vaughn is probably the best person you can get to fill Anthony Perkins' shoes; he can be one of America's best film stars one day, and that is evident in the way he treats his character on screen.
Full Review | Original Score: 1.5/4
January 1, 2000
The most hyped karoake act in history.
January 1, 2000
Fans of the original will protest the remake, while today's teen audience will find the proceedings decidedly less than frightening than what's been available in the past decade or so.
May 20, 2003
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.
| Original Score: 2.5/4
Page 1 of 4