Watch it now
People Who Like this movie also like
as Marion Crane
as Norman Bates
as Sam Loomis
as Milton Arbogast
as Lila Crane
as Dr. Simon
as Tom Cassidy
as Mr. Lowry
as Sheriff Chambers
as Mrs. Chambers
as Car Dealer
as Police Guard
as Bob Summerfield
as Woman Customer
as Chief of Police
as District Attorney
as Alfred Hitchcock (uncredited)
Critic Reviews for Psycho
Contains nothing to outrage or offend partisans of the original, yet neither does it stand to add much to their appreciation.
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.
The film is polished when it should be edgy and impersonal when it should be seductive.
Van Sant has cranked up the realism about 20 points, but somehow what he achieves for the effort is a larger sense of banality!
Audience Reviews for Psycho
Norman Bates: She might have fooled me, but she didn't fool my mother. "Check in. Relax. Take a shower." Not only is it argued that this Psycho is just a pointless remake of a brilliant classic; it is fact. There's no real reason for a shot by shot remake of Hitchcock's brilliant and influential piece of horror/psychological thriller history. As it is though, I still have a hard time hating it. It's well made, updated, and the theme of sexuality is more at the forefront, or at least more obvious. This is a movie that I neither like or dislike. It merely exists. Norman runs the Bates Motel, and when Marion Crane, a woman who has just run from Phoenix with $400,000, stops by, things get interesting. There's no point in really talking about the plot any further than that because if you've seen the original, it's the exact same and if you haven't, I wouldn't want to ruin it for you, but definitely check out the original because it is one of the best movies ever made period. I have a lot of respect for Gus Van Sant and the way he goes about making movies. He never expected this to be a well received movie, but it was a project that he personally wanted to do. You have to appreciate a filmmaker who is making films for himself and not a mass audience, and that is Gus Van Sant. So while I don't see a real reason for making this, I don't hate that he did. I don't believe he disrespected the original and if anything, it should serve as more of a tribute than anything. Hate it or tolerate it, Gus Van Sant's Psycho exists. The cast is pretty good, besides the fact that I didn't love Vince Vaughn as Norman. The Rest of the cast is pretty much perfect though, especially William H. Macy as the private detective. So I'm not going to recommend this, but if you are a big fan of the original and of Van Sant, it's not as worthless a movie as everyone would have you believe.
Don't know why there's so much hate for this remake. Hitchcock was great, but there's nothing wrong with imitation if it freshens or adds new dimensions. As Mattheson said, "What is borrowed must be repaid with interest." Handel openly copied others' works to great acclaim -- even copying and reshaping his own earlier music. So did Mozart when he recast Handel's Messiah and Acis & Galetea. As did Brahms in his "remake": Variations on a Theme of Haydn. Or Benjamin Britten's A Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra (which "borrowed" it's theme from Henry Purcell). Even Alfred Hitchcock's remake of "The Man Who Know Too Much" was much better than the original -- directed 25-30 years earlier by Alfred Hitchcock! I'm just saying: lay off the hate. It's no insult to have a new approach to a classic...and it's a tribute to the quality of the original when a major artist (like Van Sant) remakes/revises a cinematic masterpiece.
Horror fans really should thank Gus Van Sant for his experimental "copy exactly" approach to re-making the horror classic Psycho. Just modernizing the original with a bigger budget takes no creativity and falls into the tedium and redundancy which most horror fan's hate. Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake, where nearly every scene is "copied exactly," is a perfect example of this. It was simply BORING. Even for those that never saw this first, the pacing is just too slow for the high-octane generations of the 90's and beyond. For a re-make to resonate with an audience that knows the original by heart, it has to deliver a new and different version while staying within the bounds of the original framework. We should be thankful because no director will try this again. For the secret formula to successful horror re-makes, watch 2012's The Evil Dead, 2004's Dawn of the Dead or David Cronenberg's The Fly (1986).
|Norman Bates:||"We all go a little mad sometimes...haven't you?"|
|Norman Bates:||We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?|
|Norman Bates:||A boy's best friend is his mother.|
|Norman Bates:||We all go a little mad sometimes.|