Psycho II is hard to review. Is it anywhere near the quality of the original Hitchcock film? Nope, there is a noticeable decline here. Despite that, however, I believe that this falls into the category of "better than it should have been." I appreciate that director Richard Franklin and writer Tom Holland crafted another twisting mystery and tried to maintain the suspense that Hitchcock created, rather than just letting this film fall into becoming completely an 80s slasher and just have Norman Bates back on the loose killing again (that would have to wait until Psycho III). Anthony Perkins does an admirable job of reprising the role he originated over two decades prior, as does Vera Miles as Lila (Crane) Loomis. However, this film still manages to skirt dangerously close to stereotypical slasher territory with the rest of its characters, who are hard to relate to because of the choices they make or you just aren't given enough of a reason to care about them. The thing that made Psycho I so great is that you cared about all of the characters; here, you care about what happens to Norman and maybe are intrigued by Lila's motivations. That's not really enough to adequately carry a film. Another negative I had forgotten about until having just rewatched this recently was how on-the-nose it can be at times, most prominently whenever Norman is near a knife ("Uh oh! What will he do?!" *wink, wink*). Overall, if you loved the original Psycho, you don't have to rush out and buy Psycho II, as it (and any of the other sequels) are not essential to the mythos. If you're going in hoping it's as good as the first, you'll definitely hate it. However, if you can take it for what it is, you might enjoy yourself. I can't help but think if this movie wasn't a sequel to Psycho, it might be better perceived.