Ready or Not
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Got more questions about news letters?
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
The Audience Score makes me say... Ouch. This Film did have a lot of "Ouch" Moments, but It was very Redeemable if we're being Honest. It gave Norman a chance at becoming a hero... then broke that down. I can't blame direction on this one seeing as Anthony Perkins was the Mastermind behind the camera most of the time. I could say give it a look but, you may want to rewatch the first two films in order to figure out what in the world is going on.
Anthony Perkins directs the sequel to the sequel to One of the best movies of all. It's pretty good , I was genuinely surprised , I really expected not to like it. It was funny , the actors were good , and it was more than a little bit twisted . Not much to dislike.
It was decent. The script was sort of shoe horned into an theatrical film that seems more suited to television. But with that said, it does have decent scares and some shots were really well handled. The music score was creepy in places as Anthony Perkins had a real handle on his character as well as delivering some tongue in cheek performances. Supposed to be comical but there's a sense that if you laugh, you ruined the movie. If you 'do' laugh, you wonder why. It was shot on the cheap side. But I think why I have this rated so low is primarily the character of the nun. The lady who played her just seemed sort of flat to me. All the other characters worked fine. Norman, Duke, the reporter, the sheriff, all work fine. But the nun character didn't fit into the role. All in all, it works fine. But I think after this one, they should've stopped.
seems to make fun of itself. Perkins is hilarious as well.
This underrated sequel is the darkest in the Psycho series. Anthony Perkins directorial debut while Norman turns up the crazy.
Far better then Psycho 2. I love this one and I saw it the theater the day it opened.
It can not be said to be a bad movie, but it also can not be said to be a very good movie.
I thought the film had a rather bad and very unconventional argument; I also thought that the film is a bit unnecessary (since "Psycho II" ended up in a perfect way). I think the film left a lot to be desired and I think the public deserves more.
I think it was here that the saga "Psycho" died. I recommend it, but I think there are better movies.
A good shocking psycho trilogy ever and Anthony Perkins did a magnificent horror director with a dark humor and Hitchcock's spirits.
Its not scary or anything new in the franchise... its just more of the same. Which is good if you're a fan of the franchise. Anthony Perkins is amazing as usual, portraying Norman perfectly. He does such a great job. The cinematography again is great. Good shots of the Motel/House's exterior, great shot at the coventry to start, and the diner is still cosy and quaint. I'm so glad they haven't changed the formula. Better kills would be nice, as well as adding to his story/legend in meaningful ways.
Lame third installment of this trilogy. Stop making psycho movies.