Psycho - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Psycho Reviews

Page 1 of 4
Top Critic
Roger Ebert
Chicago Sun-Times
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
Top Critic
James Berardinelli
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
Garth Franklin
Dark Horizons
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
Top Critic
Stephen Hunter
Washington Post
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!
Rob Gonsalves
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
Top Critic
Peter Brunette
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?
Felix Vasquez Jr.
Cinema Crazed
October 23, 2013
The cast is fantastic, sure, but they're wasted in a sea of redundancy.
Top Critic
Derek Adams
Time Out
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.
Sean Axmaker
Nitrate Online
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
Pablo Villaça
Cinema em Cena
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
David N. Butterworth
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
Top Critic
J. Hoberman
Village Voice
January 1, 2000
The movie lacks the chutzpah to even be a travesty.
Top Critic
Philip Wuntch
Dallas Morning News
January 1, 2000
The film is polished when it should be edgy and impersonal when it should be seductive.
John A. Nesbit
Old School Reviews
April 25, 2013
failed project
Full Review | Original Score: D
Chuck O'Leary
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
David Keyes
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
Wallace Baine
January 1, 2000
The most hyped karoake act in history.
Jim Judy
Screen It!
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.
Leonard Schwarz
Palo Alto Weekly
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