9 of 11 people found the following review helpful
Hitchcock is turning over in his grave!!,
This review is from: Psycho (DVD)
I really hate to even give this one star. I really enjoyed some films by director Gus Van Zandt, like "Drugstore Cowboy" and "To Die For"; but, after he remade Hitchcock's classic "Psycho", I don't care if he ever makes another film again. First of all, this is a film that does not need to be remade. Especially a shot for shot COLOR (?) remake. Hitch shot "Psycho" in B&W on purpose! He had a reason for not using color in the film. And, for Gus Van Zandt not to get that just proves that he has no clue as to what made Hitch's masterpiece of cinema a classic to begin with, no idea of what made that film such a classic that it still is today.
Not only is the film as flat as a penny on a train track, but for some unknown reason, Van Zandt felt the need to insert completely unneccesary shots, like storm clouds, and (what was he thinking?!?!) scenes of Norman masturbating while he's peeping. That was very offensive to any fan of the original, because the suspense is now replaced with repulsion! But, to me, the ultimate crime was at the end: Instead of freeze framing on the liscence plate of the car as it is being pulled from the marsh, Van Zandt for God knows what reason allows his camera to keep rolling, letting the scene play out during the duration of credits. What a travesty to anything Hitchcock!!
People have slammed director Brian DePalma for borrowing from Hitchcock (one of the many reasons that I love DePalma!), and some have even declared his classic "Dressed To Kill" a "Psycho" rip off; but, at least it had a very new and fresh angle. Even DePalma wouldn't be as stupid as to try and remake a Hitchcock classic. There is no need when you can still watch the original films by the Master Of Suspense, available in most stores and Amazon on VHS and/or DVD.
Van Zandt should be hung in a public square for tampering with this timeless classic! Do not, I repeat, DO NOT waste your time with this piece of garbage! If you haven't seen "Psycho", seek out the original version and see what everyone is talking about when it comes to one of the best psychological suspense mystery thrillers ever made. Thank you.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 24 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 11, 2007 7:31:10 AM PST
Hi, Scott. Thought I'd look at your reviews more closely. Though you're 100% right about Van Zant's "Psycho," he has made some good films other than the ones you mentioned. "Elephant" is excellent, "Brokeback Mountain pretty good (but predictable), but he sold out on "Good Will Hunting," and the greatness of "Last Days," escapes me completely, inspite of generally very favorable reviews. I mean, I got "it," but "it" didn't get me. The cinematography is very good, but that's about it. If you missed it, don't bother. Have you seen "Gerry" in which Matt Damon and Casey Afflect get lost in the desert? This is another "don't bother." The jury's still out on 'ol Gus.
Your friend in film,
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 11, 2007 6:09:03 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 13, 2007 3:59:25 AM PDT
Jake, "Brokeback Mountain" is an Ang Lee film, not a Gus Van Zandt film. Either way, you're right, that film was "ok". It was visually stunning, wonderfully acted, but I feel the story was just too contrived. It's like you said about "Last Days", I got "it" ("Brokeback Mountain"), but "it" just didn't get me. (That was a very hilarious verse by the way.) I've never seen "Good Will Hunting", "Last Days", or "Gerry", nor do I feel as if I'm missing out on anything, but thanks for the head's up! Take Gus to the gallows for his crime of remaking Hitchcock's ultimate psychological mystery thriller. Thanks, Scott.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2007 7:59:16 PM PDT
To me, the only good film Gus ever did was My Own Private Idaho. I didn't see Last Days, and I hated Gerry. This remake of Pyscho was probably meant "ironically", which means they went out and made a deliberately bad film with a smug, doesn't this suck attitude, then they act all snarky when you call them on it.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2007 9:48:03 AM PDT
GG, I would like to think that was the case, but I'm afraid that Gus thought that he was making his own little masterpiece with this garbage. However, either way, he should be crucified for even touching a frame of Hitch's classic film. Thanks for the comment, and keep up the great reviews!
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2007 8:03:36 PM PDT
Duane A. Christofferson says:
I second that.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2007 2:39:38 PM PDT
Gus never gave a good reason for doing this film. Sometimes he said he was being "ironic", then he said it would be fun, in other words, he couldn't come up with a decent reason why he remade one of the greatest horror films of all time.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2007 9:16:46 PM PDT
Thanks a lot for your imput here. It's neat how you said so much by using so few words.
Hope to hear more from you in the future!
Even though Gus has made a couple of really good films, no matter what his excuse (I really don't think he has one, for I think the moron thought he struck gold with the idea of remaking Hitch's classic film), it still doesn't excuse him for ever touching Hitch's masterpiece. The 'irony' is that Hitch's film will remain a classic for eternity, whereas Gus' film will ALWAYS be remembered as the 'film that should not be'.
In my opinion, he should have been ostracized from ever making another film EVER, for this remake is the ultimate sin in the art of filmmaking. Thanks for your post as well, and always look forward to hearing from you in the future as well.
In the meantime, check out some (ANY) DePalma film if you want that Hitchcock 'flavor', but this film should be retrieved and the prints burned, for its sole existance is null and void, so it should be destroyed! Who would really miss it anyway???! Gus? I know I sure wouldn't!
As far as I'm concerned, this film doesn't even exist...
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2007 4:27:05 PM PDT
To DePalma's credit, he's never remade a Hitchcock film, and if he did, he sure as hell wouldn't try and copy it frame for frame like Gus did.
Whatever Gus's reasons were for doing this "film", he kept changing his story because of all the (deserved) negative press he got, so, like a politician whose hands were caught in the money pot, he kept changing his story..
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2007 12:44:15 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 10, 2007 3:05:26 AM PDT
As close as DePalma has come with some of his 'homages' to Hitchcock, like "Obsession" and "Dressed To Kill", he still put such unique original spins on them to make them films of his own, not straight out tired remakes. I still hold that Brian makes use of more French cinema Nuvue, like Hitch and Kubrick did, and that's why their films resemble each other, for they all 3 are (or were) more 'artsy' in their approach as filmmakers. Van Zandt is as dull and flat as a pancake left out in the rain for a month.
I meant to say that if you want that Hitchcock 'flavor', avoid this film like a very bad case of TB, and stick to watching Hitchcock's unique films. Even the oldest of his films still stand up as classic cinema today.
As for Gus, I like your politician comparison. Very cool!
And, thanks for giving DePalma some credit!!
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2007 1:05:53 AM PDT
CLINT BRONSON says:
A-MEN R.A. Don't even get me started
on this pile. Best scene me throwing
this disc(RENTED MIND YOU FROM B.B.)
on the intersection of EL. Camino and
3rd.(at 4:00pm Tues.Traffic)Paid B.B.
more for the loss of disc.WORTH IT!