Psycho Reviews

Page 1 of 3
October 23, 2013
The cast is fantastic, sure, but they're wasted in a sea of redundancy.
April 25, 2013
failed project
August 7, 2012
A futile, soulless shot-by-shot remake of Hitchcock's masterpiece.
March 26, 2009
Contains nothing to outrage or offend partisans of the original, yet neither does it stand to add much to their appreciation.
September 16, 2008
...the Hitchcock film relied for its effects on originality and creativity. Van Sant's remake substitutes rote repetition and cliches that have long since lost their value.
September 22, 2007
Psycho doesn't do much for Van Sant, and he doesn't do much for Psycho.
August 13, 2007
Vaughn's Norman Bates is much inferior because he lacks the natural neurosis of Anthony Perkins.
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.
December 6, 2005
The movie doesn't stink. The performances are good, potentially great, especially Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates, but he owns a scene just for doing that psychotic giggle of his.
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).
January 7, 2004
franky it sucks
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.
Top Critic
July 12, 2002
June 5, 2002
It's not so much that this movie didn't need to be made. The real tragedy is that a group of enormously talented people wasted several months of their lives when together they could have done something fresh and exciting and original.
May 31, 2002
Gus Van Sant assumiu um trabalho ingrato: quando as cenas funcionam, em seu filme, a responsabilidade de Hitchcock. Quando falham, a culpa sua.
February 27, 2001
An utterly empty technical achievement.
January 1, 2000
Less a remake and more a scene-by-scene reconstruction, with all of the original dialogue intact.
January 1, 2000
Vince Vaughn simply does not convey Norman's inner madness with Anthony Perkins's elan, nor can Viggo Mortensen, who comes across as somehow eccentric, match the undeviating John Gavin in the 1960 work.
January 1, 2000
As Norman Bates, Vince Vaughn makes us better appreciate how much Anthony Perkins brought to the original project.
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.
Page 1 of 3