Customer Reviews

Psycho [VHS]

5 star:		(44)
4 star:		(35)
3 star:		(46)
2 star:		(46)
1 star:		(118)

 

 

Where was Alfred Hitchcock's name in the credits? Was the film dedicated to him and I blinked and missed it? Was he acknowledged in any way, other than his silly cameo? How much money was Patricia Hitchcock paid to say, in the featurette, that her father would have approved of this movie? These and many other questions can be condensed into one word: why? Remaking this, shot-for-shot and in color, was a huge error in judgement made by whomever it was that green-lighted this cinematic travesty. Whereas, in the original, Anthony Perkins, under the guidence of the master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock, played Norman as the somewhat disturbed but likeable boy next door and therefore the ending was a shock, Vince Vaughn played crazy right from the get-go, completely spoiling the rest of the film. Viggo Mortensen's acting couldn't have been worse, and what's the deal with them changing the house? The old house was sinister and creepy, especially in black and white; the new house looks like a reject from a William Castle movie. The opening credits, in color, look very nice, but the film slides quickly downhill from there. This film might have worked if only Anne Heche had played Norman instead of Marion. If you've never seen either version, please see the original!

This remake of the cherished 1960 Hitchcock classic is pointless and unnecessary. It's like remaking Sunset Boulevard (rest in peace, Billy Wilder) in color with Raquel Welch and Freddy Prinze, Jr. in the Gloria Swanson and William Holden roles and throwing in a Basic Instinct sex scene for good measure. Psycho is like Casablanca, Laura, It's a Wonderful Life, Some Like It Hot and To Kill a Mockingbird -- great films where the audience, after seeing them, can never picture other actors playing those roles. For me, Marion Crane will always be Janet Leigh and Norman Bates will always be Anthony Perkins -- period. Hitchcock's Psycho is a masterpiece that deserves to stand on its own without a shot-for-shot pale imitation to stain its memory. There are many things wrong with this version, but I'll concentrate on four areas:

First, Vince Vaughn has a completely and utterly impossible task of trying to match up to Anthony Perkins' performance in the original. Perkins' Norman Bates came out of his own personality. He, like Norman Bates, lost his father at an early age and had a internal conflict over his own sexual identity. He, like Norman Bates, had a clinging, possessive mother. Vaughn, in contrast, is behind the eight ball as soon as he appears on the screen in the remake. Vaughn plays Norman Bates. Perkins IS Norman Bates. Vaughn tries his best, but it isn't nearly enough.

The updated touches director Gus Van Sandt has added -- namely the masturbation, vomiting, nudity and the added gore. Instead of making a positive additional contribution to the story, these updates merely seem like a gratuitous tack-on that Van Sandt has added to appeal to modern audiences. Martin Scorcese's remake of Cape Fear earned the right to deal more graphically with its subject matter than the original. In that case, the added story elements gave that version a depth that the original did not possess. The updates in the remake of Psycho, however, seem like pandering to an audience that Van Sandt fears won't accept his version without the modern expected minimum of sex, violence and gore.

Van Sandt also makes a concession to modern audiences by filming in color. If there has ever been a film that was destined to be made in black and white, it is Psycho. Whether Hitchcock meant to film the original in black and white for artistic reasons, to save on the budget or merely to spare audiences the gore of the shower scene, the final effect worked beautifully without color. Bernard Herrmann even wrote his brilliant score exclusively for strings, striving for a "black and white sound." A perfect example is the scene where Detective Milton Arbogast (Martin Balsam in the original, William H. Macy in the remake) sneaks up to the Bates house. In the original, even though it is still daylight, there is a sense of foreboding due to the black and white photography. The shadows are darker and the house looks even more menacing. Macy's climb up to the house, in contrast, seems too colorful and too bright. There's no menace or foreboding to the scene at all. Anyone who finds black and white films unwatchable might change their tune if they see both versions of Psycho.

However, for me, the biggest weakness of the remake of Psycho is Anne Heche's performance. Heche is a good actress, but here she makes all of the wrong choices. Marion Crane, as played by Janet Leigh, is a person who has followed the rules all of her life -- a "good girl" who has worked hard and has a good head on her shoulders. We identified with Janet Leigh's Marion because we saw a lot of ourselves in her. When Marion steals the $40,000 in the original, we root for her because Leigh has done such an effective job of establishing Marion as a good person who sees her life slipping away and is driven to her larceny by her desperation. And when she is gone, we all feel the loss of someone we cared about.

Heche, in contrast, has stated that she saw Marion as a flightly, scatterbrained person who has no perception of the consequence of her actions. This approach misses the whole point of the character. In the Hitchcock original, there is a moment of indecision by the audience after Marion's exit over shifting allegiance to Norman Bates. We have spent the first half of the film becoming involved in the fate of a person we identify with and care about. Now, Hitchcock forces us to identify with the person who is covering up her demise. Because of Heche's approach to the role, Marion becomes a superficial dingbat who elicits no sympathy while she is alive and who the audience does not miss when she is dead. The whole point of the story is that Marion IS a good person who "just goes a little mad" when she steals the $40,000. She isn't, as Heche suggests in her interpretation, an irresponsible person who doesn't realize the consequences of her actions. Heche's approach blunts all of the dramatic impact of the story and irrepably hurts the film's effectiveness.

Aside from a performance by Julianne Moore that improves upon the shrill performance of Vera Miles in the original and a performance by William H. Macy that equals that of Martin Balsam, this film has nothing new or positive to offer. Gus Van Sandt is a talented filmmaker who hopefully will avoid projects like this in the future. He should concentrate on establishing his own legacy rather than trying to copy the legacy of Alfred Hitchcock. If he goes up against The Master of Suspense, he's going to lose badly.

Gus Van Sant is a talented director in his own right, as he proved in his stirring and depressing account of the travails and adventures of a latter-day Henry V "My Own Private Idaho." So why, then, did Van Sant feel the need to make this version of "Psycho", which isn't even a 'version', since this movie is a slavish shot-for-shot remake of the original, albeit set in the 1990's.

As I've said on many an occasion, I have no problem with a true remake: a fresh look on an old theme is perfectly fine, so long as it's well done and has something new to say. But given Van Sant's directorial talent, and considering the top tier (albeit underrated) acting talent involved (Vince Vaughn, Anne Heche, William H. Macy, and Viggo Mortensen, it's hard to fathom why Van Sant would choose to use his talents on something like this.

It's worth emphasizing to the incredulous that this movie is NOT a remake, but is, indeed, a SHOT-for-SHOT reshoot of the original Hitchcock classic. Except for perhaps two little inexplicable touches, the film uses every camera angle, and every snippet of dialogue, and all of the characters, in the original film: the only departure from the original "Psycho" is that this movie is shot in color. Of the two departures, there isn't much to say: they take the form of brief 'visions' edited MTV-style into the killing sequences, and include a roiling stormy sky, a masked woman in a bikini, and an ewe.

For this we needed a feature film? What's more, while the movie itself is at first intriguing as a curiosity ("hmmm...let's see how Anne Heche plays the shower sequence) quickly begins to resemble bad dinner theater, and the film and actors, by definition, draw comparison to the original. Lamentably, they don't do well in the comparison. Anne Heche is tasty as always as Marion Crane, but she doesn't hold a candle to Janet Leigh's subtle portrayal of a libidinous woman wracked simultaneously by greed and guilt. Viggo Mortensen adds more of a Lil' Abner sensibility to his role than should be decent.

William H. Macy, usually outstanding, is just embarrassing in the role of Detective Arboghast, and Vince Vaughn is completely underwhelming and unbelievable as Norman Bates: watching Vaughn exerting himself on the lines that Anthony Perkins made seem effortless, you begin to realize just how supremely well-suited Perkins was for the role. If anything, watching Van Sant's reshoot of "Psycho" is almost the ultimate homage to Hitchcock's film, if only that you in doing so you realize what a marvel the original was.

Van Sant's reshoot of "Psycho", then, is interesting for about 15 minutes; after that you begin wondering what the point is. Put the original "Psycho" on the hopper instead; you'll be glad you did.

Perhaps if the film makers behind this video anachronism had actually invested some originality into their project, taken Hitchcock's original plot and showed us a new perspective, or perhaps even adapted one of original author Robert Bloch's sequels to the Norman Bates saga, almost anything other than a pointless shot-by-shot and line-by-line colorization of the original masterpiece, then maybe this would have been something other than an empty waste. But they didn't, and it is. Some have tried to justify this remake by claiming today's moviegoers-especially the youth--don't know the original and won't watch a black & white movie. Well, that's their loss. The original Psycho's black & white photography was so beautifully manipulated it actually looks better than the remake, color or not. Anne Heche and Vince Vaughn are adequate as Marion Crane and Norman Bates, but they don't make anybody forget they're not Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins. On the other hand, Julianne Moore as a spazzed out Lila Crane is a disaster, and takes every one of her scenes like the bad medicine they are. Viggo Mortenson's Sam Loomis is even worse, an empty-headed redneck evidently just looking for a cheap feel. Bottom line? If you want to see Psycho, arguably the most terrifying thriller ever filmed, skip this one and see the original.

It must have sounded like a good idea; right? One of the most beloved horror movies of all time, directed by one of the most beloved directors of all time; redirected by one of the most controversial directors of our time and staring a slew of rising stars. It must have sounded like a really good idea; right?

I have a question.

HOW DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A GOOD IDEA?

This is really the equivalent of Baz Luhrmann waltzing up to Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman and proposing they remake `Gone with the Wind' (ouch, I think he already did that). Seriously though, you can't possibly tell me that this sounds like a good idea, especially in the eternally shaky hands of Gus Van Sant, a director whose controversial style has only resulted in brief flares of genius. Couple that with the fact that his cast is far less than brilliant, and the fact that his decision to shoot the film frame for frame, word for word only proved to disable his own unique style and you have a film that falls far short of the brilliance that was Hitchcock's original.

I'm not even going to bother with a film synopsis, for if you don't know what this movie is about then really, I mean, seriously...

The acting is decent in parts, horrid in others. Anne Heche is actually the best part of this movie, and she gets killed off before the half way mark (duh). She actually captured a little bit of what Janet Leigh brought to the table. Vince Vaughn may be the films biggest downfall (well, that honor belongs to Gus Van Sant) for he merely phones his way through what may possibly be one of the most chilling creations of all time. Anthony Perkins was Oscar worthy as Norman Bates; Vince Vaughn should have been nominated for a Razzie. He tries way too hard to be `creepy' instead of playing the normal guy who is unwittingly creepy. The rest of the performances are decent enough, Moore stealing the show in my opinion, but not really doing enough to write home about.

The film has really no redeeming factor. The biggest mistake (aside from remaking it in the first place) was remaking it in color. The rich black and white tones Hitchcock used only added to the eeriness of the film as a whole. Making the film a color production took so much away from this mood. I remember the scene in the original, where Bates is having Marion over to dinner. The scene was just so spine chilling. Here, in the light, with color splashed everywhere, the scene is merely annoying.

I'd stay away from this film, especially if you are a fan of the original. If you have yet to see either, take my word for it (please) and skip this mess for Hitchcock's gem. If you are not a fan of Hitchcock's masterpiece then quite frankly; why are you interested in seeing this slop; and lastly, if you hated Hitchcock's but loved this mess then, well, seriously...

No wonder this "shot-for-shot remake" was so controversial! I had some big problems with this movie for the following reasons:

1.)THE CASTING CHOICES! - Anne Heche as Marion Crane? Julianne Moore as Marion's sister? VINCE VAUGHN as NORMAN BATES? What were they thinking? The only decent casting choice in the entire film was William H. Macy as Arbogast.

2.)THE SHOWER SCENE - It is in no way like the original! There is TOO MUCH blood and nudity, and the way it is cut just makes the whole scene worse! Also...(see #3)

3.)THE SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES - Okay. What's the deal with the rolling thunder clouds in the shower scene? How about that cow in the road and the naked lady lying on the bed during Arbogast's death scene as he is falling down the stairs? There is no signifigance.

4.)THE PEEPHOLE SCENE - Was Norman Bates doing what I think he was doing? Okayyyyy...............

Overall, this movie was a waste of film, and it should have never been made. Gus Van Sant is a great director, but lets hope that he never does anything like this ever again!

Misguided and failing on every level this remake should be listed as THE example of Hollywood's creative bankruptcy. And what would possess the stellar supporting cast to join up with this carnival of stupidity? Every word of dialogue only serves to remind the viewer that they're watching some kind of backyard production compared to the irreplaceable original.

What's next Gus? Redoing Gone with the Wind? Ben-Hur? Citizen Kane?

This is a shot-for-shot, almost verbatim, remake of Hitchcock's masterpiece. It's good filmmaking, but I can't help wondering "why bother?" Yes, it's a good film, and if it were the only Psycho out there, it would doubtless have been well received, but since it does not improve on Hitchcock's original, it seems more of an exercise by a film studies MFA student, than a serious attempt at commercial filmmaking.

"But it's in color!" Well, yes, so? Modern viewers may overlook the fact that Hitchcock made Psycho in 1960, a time when most films were in color, and Hitchcock himself had already made a number of color films. He did not shoot Psycho in black-and-white because he had no choice. He shot it in black-and-white because he was a great filmmaker, who understood that this particular story would play better in stark contrasts, rather than the nuances of color. If you pay attention, it is quite obvious that the actual colors of the sets and costumes actually were black and white. If color stock had been used, there still would be little color in the film. This movie is a horror film, but it is also a statement about people in dead-end lives. Black-and-white footage superbly highlights this theme.

Anne Heche, in Janet Leigh's old role is quite passable, but sadly does not use peculiarities of plot to communicate her character. For example, when Janet Leigh's Marion
Crane in 1960 meets her lover in a hotel during her lunch hour, it is par for the era. However, Anne Heche leaves us wondering why on earth, if Sam is divorced, her 1998 affair is such a secret that she has to sneak off to sleep with Sam on third-party territory. There is opportunity for Marion to show the kind of quirkiness that Heche seems to have no problem showing in her real life. I imagine she was constrained by director Gus VanSant's obsession with recreating the original film. Vince Vaughn, as Norman, is so slavishly trying to be Anthony Perkins, that he seems to forget he is actually playing Norman Bates. As a result, he's more annoying than creepy.

However, there's no reason not to see this film; there's nothing really bad about it other than wasted opportunities. And die-hard fans of Hitchcock will probably be driven by curiosity to see it anyway. It's worth a few dollars as a video rental, or as a used film from Amazon, even if it's not a major film accomplishment, as the first version was.

In other words, a lifeless corpse of a movie.

This movie is exactly like the original, the only differences being that it is not scary, interesting, engaging, or convincing.

The movie equivalent of a Paint by Numbers knockoff of the Mona Lisa.

Van Sant's next projects include remakes of the following:
"Gone With the Wind" with Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks
"Citizen Kane" starring Tom Cruise with a soundtrack by N'SYNC
"The Grapes of Wrath" starring Bob Saget, Rosie O'Donnell (as "Ma"), and George "Goober" Lindsey.

Hooray for Hollywood.

Why make a scene for scene color remake of Hitchcock's suspense classic, "Psycho"? Did director Clint Van Sant want to introduce Hitchcock's masterpiece to a new generation of filmgoers by updating it? Did he want to pay homage to the master himself? Or did he simply selfishly indulge himself by creating this modernized facsimile? Probably all of the above, but it was a vain and pointless effort.

Regardless of how you feel about remaking a film that should never have been remade, "Psycho", while it does not hold a candle to the original, is still a stylish, well cast, well acted and well crafted, if curious, new spin on Hitchcock's classic. It is probably the best scene for scene remake possible. However, that does not justify the making of this redundant remake. It felt very odd, watching these new faces physically emulate and speak the same phrases of the characters I have become so accustomed with in the original "Psycho". Even the music and most of the camera angles are identical to the original.

If he had to do a remake of "Psycho", Clint Van Sant probably would have been better served to have improvised--use the same plot context but throw in new dialogue, new plot twists and a more in-depth study of the characters. Instead, Clint Van Sant just pushes buttons.

If you have ever seen the original, it is worth your while to watch this remake for its value as a curio. If you have never seen either, watch the far superior original first. If nothing else, this remake of "Psycho" is one of the most enigmatic curiosities in the history of cinema.