Psycho - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Psycho Reviews

Page 1 of 162
March 16, 2017
There's simply no point in its existence. The only enjoyment to be gleaned here is from the engaging story, disturbing undertones and masterful score, all of which lifted directly from the original.
½ February 22, 2017
Same thing as the original except for one little thing: The acting's worse.
½ November 26, 2016
So as not to simply (and annoyingly) repetitively echo what's already been stated about this remake, its only real redeeming quality, as I see it, is its color (which is magnificent). The Look of the film is excellent. Props to the DP and those involved in set design, location choice, as well as the camera operators. Beyond that, everything in this film just feels rushed. A lot of people give this movie flack for being slow in pacing, which I agree with. But the delivery of nearly all of the lines, in pursuit of trying to make sure all of the verbatim boxes are checked, feels uncomfortably hurried. (A lot of talent coming off as much less than.) Hence, making the film incredibly difficult to actually enjoy. It is a shame.
October 29, 2016
Gus Van Sant doesn't bring any new ideas to the table in Psycho, stranding its talented cast in a bland, by-the-numbers rehash of a script that foregoes a refreshing approach to its classic source material in favor of color.
October 29, 2016
I thought this was entertaining and not at all as bad as a lot of the reviews make it out to be. The only thing that really pulled me out of the movie was the casting of Vince Vaughn. Seems like an odd choice that just distracted me. It would've been like picking Jim Carrey or Adam Sandler.
½ September 25, 2016
I love Psycho that much that I loved this movie
August 25, 2016
Only gets one because I love Vince Vaughn.
½ August 12, 2016
I've always had a sort of morbid fascination with Gus Van Sant's shot by shot remake of Hitchcock's highly influential 1960 thriller. No, it's really nowhere as good but I've always gotten a kick out of it.
July 27, 2016
This is a great remake. It brings new meaning to some of the lines and real terror to the murders, specially the famous shower scene, where you can now really feel the knife sticking in Marion's body. Of course, the original remains impeccable, but I really don't see why people hated this so much.
½ July 13, 2016
its a shot for shot color remake that no one needs
July 11, 2016
A shot-by-shot boring and insulting remake of Hitchcock's masterpiece.
July 7, 2016
The only reason I am giving the film this many is cuz I like the actors. Shame on you, Van Sant!
½ June 22, 2016
Better than its reputation. Still not great though.
June 6, 2016
Don't waste your time with this remake. It essentially rips-off every line from the original film along with some very poor performances and casting.
May 30, 2016
The only big plus is that hopefully this will push people to go watch the original
½ May 16, 2016
2.5/5 - not as bad as I recall after a repeat viewing
January 24, 2016
Despite an all star cast (and director) this remake was just that, a remake. Basically just copied the original and comes no where close.
December 31, 2015
The movie is not that bad. I would rather they do a updated shot for shot remake like this than to try and reinvent the character and fail miserably as was the case with nightmare on elm street
½ December 19, 2015
I hate this on a level as much as I love the original on the other side of the spectrum. This cheap junk is basically a SHOT FOR SHOT remake of Hitchcock's masterpiece. The only difference is its in color and a different cast. There are 2 reasons it gets one star is
1. William H. Macy portrayed Arbogast better because he is a better actor.
2. The music, while exactly the same is a lot clearer to hear since it was recorded by Danny Elfman with modern technology, so the just sounds clearer and not as staticky
Other than that TOTAL CRAP!!!
December 1, 2015
It's not really even worth renting.
Page 1 of 162