Psycho - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Psycho Reviews

Page 2 of 162
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.
½ November 30, 2015
Unnecessary, pointless, and...frame by frame ? What's the sense of it ? As Leonard Maltin's smartly pointed out : " an insult, rather than a tribute, to a landmark film" (Movie Guide 2015)
October 25, 2015
Gus Van Sant doesn't bring anything new to the table in his remake of Psycho, drowning his talented all-star cast under bloody waves of 60s nostalgia and shot-for-shot rehashing that fail to make up for the movie's relentless imitation of an everlasting Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece.
½ October 11, 2015
An interesting cinematic experiment from Van Sant with an excellent, unconventional performance from the underrated Vaughn.
September 29, 2015
A pesar de contar con la misma trama de la original, todo esta mal desde la direcciˇn, hasta la actuaciones son horribles.
½ September 17, 2015
This has got to be one of the worst remakes that I've ever seen in my entire life! There is no need to remake the original Psycho because it is already one of Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece. If Hollywood tries to remake one of Hitchcock's movies they'll get worse. Much worse. The only thing I find it different is the helicopter shot like what Hitchcock originally intended (it explains in the documentary of the original film), but that is not saying much. It is still a pointless remake.
August 29, 2015
This movie was some type of reward. I've got no interest in watching it.
Paris S.
Super Reviewer
½ July 21, 2015
Say what you will, I think this shot for shot homage to the original is in a (very, very small, minute, almost infinitesimal) handful of ways SUPERIOR to the original. Vince Vaughn's portrayal of Norman Bates, if you're able to get past the actor's typecasting, is spot-on and immensely entertaining. The shots are all here, but the subtle nods and brief fourth wall breaking homages to the original make this film unique, and I actually enjoy it.
½ June 1, 2015
This crap remake is exactly like the original and that is the reason alone why this film fails on every single level. There is just nothing here to complement. There is no sense of originality from this, it's completely lazy in every way, the acting is virtually soulless in every frame, and it doesn't even come close whatsoever to the original from 1960. Who the hell thought making this pointless shot-by-shot remake was a good idea? What idiots were stupid enough to think this was necessary at all? Gus Van Sant. What the hell man? You gave us a fantastic film in Good Will Hunting and this is your follow-up? Really? Just why? What was going through your head? This is probably the worst horror remake ever make and maybe even one of the worst films I have ever seen in my entire life just because it is a dumb and lifeless carbon copy of the classic Hitchcock original from 1960. Everybody in the film didn't look like they wanted to be there. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates? Talk about miscast. His performance in every frame was literally a joke. Anna Heche's performance as Marion Crane was also just wooden. Even the minor little changes were just dumb and unnecessary. I really don't feel like talking about this movie anymore because it is just terrible in every sense of the word and every DVD and VHS copy of the film deserves a comfortable seat inside of a garbage can because it is that bad in my opinion. The more I think about it the more pissed off I get. .
May 20, 2015
Gus Van Sant's shot-by-shot remake is terrible and poorly acted.
½ May 18, 2015
A shot for shot remake,what the fluck.Van Sant is better than this soulless piece of garbage.
May 16, 2015
You won't enjoy this. Pointless and unnecessary remake of the classic. You just can't touch Hitchcock if you're copying someone like him.
½ May 6, 2015
One of the most controversial films to ever come out of Hollywood. Not so much for its content, but for the simple fact that it's a remake of a popular masterpiece, and I guess if a film is considered a classic then you aren't allowed to remake it. Gus Van Sant was doomed from the start with this one. Audiences went in already having their minds made up, that they hated it. It's a remake of an Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece, so by default it's terrible. In the hands of any other director, it definitely could have been. The violence and gore would have been increased to satisfy modern film goers blood lust. Gratuitous sex and nudity would have been included. Atmosphere and building dread would have been replaced with cheap jump scares. Instead, Gus Van Sant took the film in a completely different direction, he essentially used the original film as a blue print, and made a nearly shot for shot carbon copy. But not exactly. Gus Van Sant brought his own vision to the proceedings, and as similar as this Psycho is, it's also distinctly dissimilar. The psychosexual aspects of the film are explored more, subliminal imagery is intercut into key sequences, adding an extra level of creepiness and depth to the psychological themes. The flamboyant style is used to great effect, adding even more to enjoy to the film. If you separate this as just 'that awful remake of Psycho' and accept the film on its own terms, it is stylish, unique, and a fresh approach to the material. The casting is also inspired, but is probably the weakest aspect of the film. While William H. Macy and Julianne Moore are great in their roles, even better than the performances in the original, Anne Heche and Vince Vaughn pale in comparison. They are not bad, Heche is actually striking here, she's always been underrated in my opinion, and she certainly makes the character her own. But what actress could have bested Janet Leigh's iconic turn? As for Vaughn, he certainly can't be faulted for a lack of trying, and he's certainly not bad, but Anthony Perkins will always be the ONLY Norman Bates, and simply no other actor out there could ever replace him. Still, Vaughn was a strange choice, and I think there are many better actors out there that could have done something special that Vaughn misses here. With that said, Gus Van Sant's Psycho is underrated, and was unfairly ripped to shreds. It's a different take on the source material, and in many ways, is one of the better horror remakes out there. Unfortunately, it will always be regarded as 'that shitty remake that was entirely pointless.' Whatever, I love it.
½ April 19, 2015
The movie is about as scary as the tagline. "Check in. Relax. Take a shower." I hope Psycho gets a proper remake someday. The Hitchcock original was brilliant but it is a little outdated.
½ April 1, 2015
This nearly shot-for-shot remake of the original "Psycho" is a failure, but a fascinating one that I'm sort of glad exists.

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.
½ March 31, 2015
This isn't he movie you think it is. It's not a cheap cash-in on a classic film or even an experimental failure from a director who should know better. It's a sly referendum on the nature of remakes and the studios who make them. Hitchcock was not only a master of manipulating audiences, he was a genius at using his box office clout to manipulate the studios themselves --- which is precisely how the original film was made in the first place. This remake is bizarrely cast and weirdly staged but that's not the point. This isn't supposed to a "movie" in the traditional sense; it's a trick, a misdirection, an inspired feint. This is a movie about watching movies.
½ March 28, 2015
It's not bad per se, it is just completely unnecessary and totally not the right role for Vince Vaughn. Why on earth would you remake a Hitchcock masterpiece?
Page 2 of 162