There are few things I can compliment the movie for. Gus Van Sant and crew do get most of the shots done the exact same way as the original, though the inclusion of color makes some of them less exciting. On a technical level it's hard to fault, but it's hard to praise either since they did nothing new with the story.
The only absolutely horrible thing technically is the sound music. Bernard Herrmann's classic score is still used in most of the same places as the original, but it's also put in a few places where it doesn't need to be. There are also a few songs added to this remake which are used in the worst places possible. The ending scene, already the least important scene from the original, is made worse since the music drowns out everything the doctor (Robert Forster) is saying.
The acting and direction is where the film really falls flat, though. In trying to imitate the original performances rather than bring a new interpretation to the stories or characters, most of the actors come across as wooden and the line delivery is off more often than not. Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche are the worst offenders, though it's probably more Van Sant's fault. Julianne Moore, William H. Macy and Viggo Mortensen give it a good go, but they don't add any new layers to the characters we already know too well from the original.
As I said before, I'm kind of glad this film exists as a cautionary tale to any other misguided filmmakers of the future who think a shot-for-shot remake would be a good idea. It wouldn't. Remakes are rarely a good idea, and they only work when they bring a new interpretation to the story.
This "Psycho" is interesting enough to watch if you've seen the original and want to see people try and fail to recapture its magic. I was just as glued to the screen with this one than the last one, but more because I wanted to see the minor changes from the original. I actually recommend fans of the original to watch this soon after a viewing of the first. It will make you appreciate Hitchcock's masterpiece even more.
Was it competently duplicated? Sure, but giving it any due credit as a film, is like calling someone who traces over existing works of art an artist.