Psycho (1998)

Numerous critics had already sharpened their knives even before Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot color "re-creation" of the 1960 black-and-white Hitchcock classic was released, chiding the Good Will Hunting director for defiling hallowed ground. This intriguing cinematic curiosity, though, is hardly as sacrilegious as critics would lead you to believe. If anything, Van Sant doesn't take enough liberties with his almost slavish devotion to the material, now updated with modern references. At times, you wish Van Sant would cut loose with a little spontaneity, a little energy, a little something. Unfortunately, when he does venture outside Hitchcock's parameters, with inserted shots of storm clouds during the murder sequences, it's to little effect. Granted, he liberally splashes color throughout the film (especially in the case of the infamous shower scene), and this is a great-looking movie, but in his obsession with adding a new physical dimension to the film, there's little insight into these characters that Hitchcock hadn't already provided. Vince Vaughn, a robotic and giggly Norman, doesn't crawl under your skin the way boy-next-door Anthony Perkins did, and Anne Heche is admirable if not very sympathetic in the Janet Leigh role. Van Sant does score a minor coup, though, in his casting of the supporting roles: Julianne Moore provides a welcome shot of energy as Heche's irritable and curious sister, William H. Macy is a perfect small-time detective, Viggo Mortensen is studly enough to make you understand why Heche would want to run away with him, and James LeGros walks away with his one brief scene as a used car salesman. And Danny Elfman's gorgeous rerecording of Bernard Herrmann's score is a potent supporting character unto itself. Students and fans of the original film will get a kick out of the modern revisions, but don't expect anything of Hitchcockian caliber; watch it for the sum of its intriguing parts, but not the whole. --Mark Englehart Amazon.com

Not terrible, but not the same either.

I'm not sure why anyone would pick this one up and pop it in the DVD player when they can just pop the original one in instead. The original is a great classic that will forever sit on top ten lists everywhere as the most chilling work of art ever created for the silver screen. This one is only tepid in comparison, and that's where the interest lies if anything, and that's too watch an update scene for scene, shot for shot movie, minus the suspense and minus the dread. This one is just "blah". Julianne Moore and William Macy manage to spice it up a bit when they finally show up about half way through, but Vince Vaughan and Anne Heche can barely claw their way out of this one trying to match the incredible performances from the original. They're better than acceptable actors, but these aren't performances that can be repeated and that was the big mistake in trying to create an exact remake of the original. They manage to get away with it in this one, but it leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth. November 17, 2008

WHY ON EARTH? WHAT ON EARTH....?

Patricia Hitchcock said her director dad Alfred insisted that "Psycho" be filmed inexpensivly and in Black and White (because in color it would be too "gory.) Well, Gus Van Sant did a shot for shot, line for line "color" remake. In Color, it is not gory, it is--MUCH WORSE-- absolutely pointless. Hitchcock's B&W "Psycho" is an engrossing, twisted, deeply disturbing masterpiece. Van Sant's remake is disturbing for entirely different reasons. You'll wonder (if you watch the entire film), "Why on earth would anybody remake this (and in color)? What on earth made ANYBODY involved want to do this? This "Psycho" is a HUGE MISTAKE that Vince Vaughn has been forgiven for. Van Sant shouldn't never be "let off" so easily and generously. NO DEFENSE FOR THIS!!!!! I only gave this One Star because you have to give a product AT LEAST one star on Amazon. This travesty deserves ZERO STARS. NO STARS!!! NO DEFENSE FOR THIS MOVIE!!!!!! October 27, 2008

One of the worst ideas of all time...

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... October 16, 2008

A few design changes and pre-production decisions could have saved this

I honestly believe that. If Gus Van Sant had gone for a TRUE shot-for-shot recreation, it could have been worlds better, though clearly not as good as the original.

I believe design changes and pre-production decisions done differently would have saved this.

For one, COLOR! Yes, color. One of the things that made the movie work so fantastically was that it was black and white, and set a mood that was ambiguous towards night or day, making them both seem as one. With color, there's no chance of that.

When Marion is driving away in her car, there is a lot of time devoted to just focusing on her face while she escapes with the money. This is utterly crucial. In the original movie, the car is a very claustrophobic place, with a dim view out the windows, which made the backgrounds seem ambiguous, and the car much smaller. It was like being placed in a closet with a light and a few paintings of scenery, it was that frightening.

In the re-make, there is no chance of that, as the picture is not only clear and colored, but more expansive, so you can see the world outside of the car, and it shows too much, leading to a more open, normal feel than the eerie, dreading, claustrophobic feel of the original.

This also comes to another problem: the picture's tone and/or lighting. I think this could make or break a film, and it broke this film badly. Certain genres of movie have a pervading mood that can be set by the look of the picture. For example, in the Matrix, the Matrix world was perpetually shaded in a sickly pale green tinting, while the "real" world was more clear, but much darker in shades of dark blue and gray. Fight Club also had sickly green tinting, which mirrors the Matrix when the narrator is at work.

The remake does not have this. It does not have any sort of moody tone set by color or picture quality or lighting. It is filmed in the same broad, generic style as a romantic comedy or comedy-drama with 90% of its budget spent solely on big-name actors. This does not fit the horror/shock/thriller genre AT ALL.


And really, the image of the film is what made the original a phenomenal movie. The dialogue and delivery is very dry and deadpan, but it's simply the look of the environments and the look of the characters that sell it beautifully.

That fails here yet again, with the casting choices so much as the imagery.

Anne Heche: From another website's analysis of the two films, I find I highly agree with the somewhat crude, but utterly true statement that the physical appeal of the women (Janet Leigh in the original, Anne Heche here) plays a big role in how the character comes off to both male and female viewers. Janet Leigh's Marion Crane was a small, petite woman, but she was also very beautiful in a traditional sort of way, and somewhat cute in a way that even women would feel for her and find themselves taken in by her beauty.

Anne Heche does not have that; she is small and petite, but not in the beautiful, soft kind of way that Janet Leigh is. To quote the comparison of the website (Cinemademerde), Anne Heche is "sharp and clipped and angular". In particular her hair is very off-putting, and makes her a very off-putting figure, not very appealing to most people, and in a somewhat unfair way, not well-placed in her role, especially since appearance really matters in this sort of film---the dialogue would suffer from being overly dry otherwise.


Vince Vaughn: I'm still heavily skeptical over this choice. Considering the choice of roles he usually plays, being a sleazy, trashy sort of guy, I was blown away by how utterly convincing Vaughn is in playing Norman Bates (whereas he was completely unconvincing as the police officer in The Cell).

But unfortunately, as I keep mentioning, appearance matters! While he sells the psychopathic nature of Norman Bates very well, he still looks like a sleazy, trashy sort of guy. Considering the fact that Norman Bates is an uptight, heavily socially repressed, psychopathic momma's boy, I'd expect him to be less casual and sleazy looking, and more uptight, formal, and well-kempt.


And in particular, Norman's mother. In the original, her body is kept in a cold, dark, damp basement that looks highly claustrophobic (a theme here) and frightening. When she's revealed as dead, there is only one lamp on, that gets knocked and spins about. The body is almost entirely in darkness, so you don't get a very good view of her corpse, but still enough to be shocked by it.

In the remake, the basement seems enormously large, and is almost too-well lit; it actually looks like it's above ground, with windows casting in light. When the mother is shown, it's in clear light, so it's less like a horrifying revelation, and more like being shown a mummy in a well-lit museum environment. Even the bleach blonde hair adds to the cheese factor of it.



That is the basic idea of what I think went wrong with this remake, and how it could have been improved. As it stands, the biggest problem is the lack of mood or tone set by coloring or film quality, etcetera. It is filmed like a basic comedy-drama, completely lacking in environment. September 10, 2008

I have not seen...

...this movie nor do I plan to after reading about on Wikipedia. Hithcock's Psycho was perfect and did not need to be remade! August 20, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...