User reviews

Watchable in a film school project kind of way, but its obsession with trying to do everything exactly like Hitchcock's version leaves it cold and emotionless. Who'd have ever thought seeing Marion Crane slashed to death in a shower would inspire nothing more than a simple shrug? As a stand alone movie, it doesn't work very well.

Alright I was like a majority of people when it comes to remakes, they normally stink, so i was very hesitant about watching this. Alfred Hitchcock is my favorite director of all time and I thought anyone else trying to ride his coat tails is just a no talent director looking for a way to make a buck. But honestly I didn't have a problem with this. It was a shot for shot remake very few differences in script scenery and emotion. I was too fond of the adding of color the movie still hits harder in black and white then it does with color, but what movie doesn't... Exception Wizard of Oz. The acting is actually pretty good better then anticipated Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche do a great job doing their reprisal of my favorite scene in the movie when both are in the parlor. Really the only downfall was Julianne Moore acting like a punk and acting more aggressive, Vera Miles had an Oscar worthy performance in the original should have just stuck with it. But my favorite addition was Vigo Mortinson, I admit never been a huge fan of his but he was very good as Sam Loomis, and honestly he was in my opinion better then John Gavin, who even Alfred Hitchcock wasn't pleased with. All in all it's a remake so don't get your hopes up for something that will surpass the original which was as close to a perfect horror film as you can get, but do expect to be entertained after all that's why movies are made and this one certainly entertained me, It just didn't blow me away like the original.

Hitchcock's original classic benefited tremendously not only from the performance of, but also the 'look' of Anthony Perkins. He projected a kind of clean-cut innocence: a young teen-idol type of persona. He was not an actor who had portrayed baddies before this; nor was he physically suited to the role of what the public might have imagined a psychopath to look like, especially in the 50's when this ultra-chilling aspect of mental illness (split personality psychosis) was relatively unexplored in film. Which is exactly why the casting of him as Norman Bates was a slice of true Hitchcockian genius. Audiences were taken by surprise to put it mildly.

That's why this re-make does not work, even a little bit, in spite of trying to be an exact copy. Whereas Anthony Perkins looked like someone you would never think of as being a serial killer, Vince Vaughn is easily imaginable as one. He lacks the frail look of Perkins and his acting chops are clearly inferior as well, at least in this role (honestly - has there ever been an actor who could convey nervousness as genuinely as Anthony Perkins?). While it was a pointless re-make to begin with, the miscasting of the story's most important character sucks this film down completely.

As a side note, I feel that Hollywood's propensity for re-making great movies because 'young' people refuse to watch anything that's not filmed in color not only stinks to high heaven of corporate greed but is exceptionally disrespectful to the original work. As for viewers who can't watch black and white - it's their loss. Hopefully they'll mature sometime in the future and no longer require shiny colours to hold their attention. When they do they'll discover that sometimes black and white works far better. With the background muted, the story and performances are that much more front and center. And in many cases the mood or atmosphere created through black and white cinematography is just not attainable in colour.

Film! What a mystery. Nobody can doubt that Gus Van Sant is a truly gifted filmmaker - I'm writing this after "Milk" - so how can it be that remaking a classic like "Psycho" shot by ,virtually, shot, Van Sant fails so miserably. Not an ounce of what made the original what it is, makes it to the remake. Every wrong choice found a home here. Anne Heche? Who thought of it? She is so bad with that unbearable little voice, one kind of wants her to die. Julianne Moore makes her Vera Miles part a butch, unattractive character. Viggo Mortensen, an actor I love, is kind of embarrassing as is William H Macy in the Martin Balsam part. The wardrobe is unforgivable and Chris Doyle, one of the best living cinematographers, creates a flat, painful, jarringly colorful frame but the worst of all is Vince Vaughn. Absolutely unforgivable. What a terrible, terrible performance. The exact opposite of Anthony Perkins where everything was intensely personal. Here it feels like a Saturday Night Live sketch, one of the less fortunate ones. I haven't been able to forgive Vince Vaughn. That silly, shallow giggle he gives to Norman Bates, will return to haunt him.

19 years after the original shock of seeing one of the great Hitchcock classics massacred by one of the greatest living directors, I sat to watch it again. Surprise, surprise. Gus Van Sant's daring attempt could have been another masterpiece if the casting of Norman Bates, in particular, had been more visionary and less opportunistic. Imagine what a break for an actor to re-invent that iconic character. Imagine what Heath Ledger, Billy Crudup, Ryan Gosling or Guy Pearce could have done with it. I'm sure that if you had been riveted rather than embarrassed by that characterization, if Vince Vaughn was more of a serious actor who understood the responsibility of his endeavor Van Sant's Psycho would have been a triumph.

Marion Crane steals $400,000 and is escaping to meet her boyfriend. When she gets tired during a stormy night she stops at the Bates motel. When she goes missing her sister, boyfriend and a private detective start to look for her. However the Bates motel run by Norman and his mother is a place of many secrets.

Remakes are regular things nowadays, but carbon copies are rare. This is a lift in terms of dialogue, shots almost everything at times. The big question is why? As a film in its own right it's not terrible but comparing it to the original it literally pales in comparison (despite the colour!). Why did we need this – sure on some level it may reach those who haven't seen the original and don't want to watch an 'old' film. But really – why should we indulge the multiplexers who refuse to watch anything made before 1991?

It's not bad – it's poor a poor relation of the original. In the UK we often get 50th anniversary etc re-releases of old films nationwide (admittedly not in all cinemas), in fact Psycho was out a few years ago. So the idea that a cheap copy is good because it'll help open it up to new audiences.

The cast are all OK – until you watch the original. Then Vaughn stands out as doing a poor imitation, Heche is nowhere near Leigh and Julianne Moore has too much 'strong woman' baggage from other roles to do well. Admittedly the all-star cast gives weight to the roles that were relatively minor – Macy, Mortensen, Forster, James LeGros, Philip Baker Hall etc – although really the question is why they all queued up to be in this toss!

Overall it's so-so as a film. However when you compare it to the original it's really a poor show and, because it's a carbon copy, you can't help but compare it line for line, scene for scene, actor for actor.

I was always a bit afraid about watching the PSYCHO remake because it has an appalling score of 4,6 and mostly bad reviews, and as nearly everyone else, I loved the 1960 original by Hitchcock. However being some sort of masochist I left my fears and last May I finally saw it.

There is no need to talk about the plot as it's a frame to frame remake of the original. Suffice to say that the new cast (the late Anne Heche as Marion Crane, Julianne Moore as her sister, Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates, Viggo Mortensen as Sam Loomis, William Macy as Milton Arbogast) is fine and some of the moments that were scary in the original were a bit gorier since it's from the 1990s. Gus Van Sant's direction was focused and the soundtrack too on par with that of the original.

Needless to say, it's a remake that is best to be seen without reading the reviews first. I think that if Hitchcock wouldn't have made PSYCHO in 1960, this would have been liked better as a standalone movie.

"Psycho" isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it . . . aw, it's terrible. An utterly soulless exercise in mimicry with an awful cast. what I really missed was Anthony Perkins; the guy had a clean- cut look that subverted his madness. But Vince Vaughn just screams serial killer. That's why none of this works. The stylistic choices are all ham-fisted, and there's no suspense because we're too busy comparing it to the original. And because it's "shot-for-shot", that's a hundred times worse than your average remake - most of which , by the way, usually bring something new to the table. Not here.

Avoid at all costs. This is not worth it.

2/10

One question, if I may . . . While we're on the subject of shot duplication, why the hell would you throw in an image of Heche hanging over the side of the tub? It deviates from the original, doesn't do your actress any favors (as Kevin Smith and Ralph Garman will certainly attest), and it's just asking for future Internet meme infamy.

Yes, why? Among the filmmakers that came out in the 80's and 90's Gus Van Sant is one of my idols. There are others, a few. Steven Sodebergh, PT Anderson, Tim Hunter, Danny Boyle, Martin Donovan, Harmony Korine, Wes Anderson. Idiosyncratic, infuriating some times, but consistent, surprising, unpredictable. Their names make me switch on the TV, go to a video store or even buy a ticket and go to a movie theater. Van Sant's "Psycho" however, gives me pause. Why? I wonder. A shot by shot massacre of one of the perennial classics. The color was jarring, the performances, atrocious. What was Vince Vaughn doing? Was it a parody? A bad joke? What the hell was it? Anne Heche as Janet Leigh? Who dressed her? Viggo Mortensen with a cowboy hat. Viggo is a superb actor but in this case he couldn't make us forget John Gavin and if Julianne Moore had been introduced to the world through this performance there wouldn't have been any "The Hours" for her, "The Minutes" maybe. So, here I am, bad mouthing the work of one of my idols. The crashing question remains: Why, Mr. Van Sant? Maybe, in the words of President Clinton, because he could. I'm afraid that's no excuse.

OK, first of all, who in their right mind would remake Hitchcock and second, who would do it shot for shot? I admit I had no intention of ever watching this movie for that very reason. The original Psycho is one of my favorite films ever and this just seemed like a degrading photocopy of it. I did watch it because my girlfriend wanted to compare it to the original and we both agreed less than five minutes into this crap that it was awful. First, as mentioned, they did it shot for shot. Where's originality? Why remake a movie that is almost perfect EXACTLY the way it was done the first time? Why remake such a movie to begin with? If you ARE going to remake something, remake something that doesn't work and make it BETTER!

Second, they used the exact same script from the 1960 version. The dialog no longer works. It works fine and sounds perfect for the 1960 version, but seems odd and stilted coming out of modern actors. Why not update the dialog? Hitch didn't write the script, you could have rewritten.

This film had some very good talent and they were wasted by imitation of the original actors. The actor who played the car salesman seemed like he was just playing John Anderson's performance as the car salesman in the original. All the actors seemed like the only direction they were given was be the characters from the original movie. Vince Vaughn may have seemed a little creepier than Anthony Perkins, but in doing so, you loose the sympathy you are supposed to have for Norman. Having Norman masturbate while watching Marion undress was going too far and lost the innocence of the character that I think Tony Perkins captured so well in his performance. Viggo Mortensen's accent was annoying and Rita Wilson was far too old to play Caroline. Her lines came off as someone desperate rather than just young and fun like Patricia Hitchcock's performance.

The only good thing I saw about the film was that Gus Van Sant was able to open the movie with the shot Hitch had envisioned. Hitch wanted to open with 1 long shot going over Phoenix but couldn't at the time so he had to settle for a series of shots cross-dissolved together. This film fulfilled that vision with a helicopter shot going into the window of the hotel. After that, though the film became a worthless waste of celluloid.

If you are curious about how to destroy a wonderful film, watch this, but do NOT under any circumstances watch this BEFORE you watch the original. This is a faded photocopy of the original and should never have been green-lit. Stick to the master's film, not the imitation.

First of all: To remake a Hitchcock movie is a really bad idea. Maybe if you make another adaption of the idea behind the movie or something like this, but to remake shot for shot is really a waste of time. This makes the movie bad enough, but the director added some lousy actors to make this movie really a stinker: Anne Heche will make you scream in pain! First of all she looks totally unattractive with her ultra-short hair, her odd mimicks and odd way of dressing in this movie. The actor who play Norman only gets on ones nerve with his unbearable nervous ticks. The only good actor was the guy who played Marions boyfriend (Vigor Mortensen I think was his name): he is really hot-looking, altough his hairstyle is somehow unfitting. The shower scene is simply boring, but the relief to see Heches last scene in the movie is quite big. That they where to lazy to compose a new score and just revamped the old one which only clashes with the new images, is also quite ridiculous in my opinion. Avoid it, watch the original.

Well, I have to agree with the critics on this one, who all said "leave it alone." Why they had to make this re-make of the 1960 "Psycho," I don't know. My guess is they wanted to reach a new audience and thought color and modern-day actors were the answer, since those were the main changes. The dialog was the same and the story the same.

On one hand, I applaud them for not making this over with a lot of profanity and nudity and making it a sleazy film. Yet, if they were going to keep everything the same, why bother when you weren't going to improve on Tony Perkins, Janet Leigh and the original cast?

Did they honestly think Vince Vaughn was going to be as good or better than Perkins? Are you kidding? Ann Heche, with her short mannish-haircut, is going to be better than Leigh? I don't think so!

Yes, the colors were pretty in here but it's the black-and-white photography that helped make the 1960 version so creepy to begin with. It's perfect for the story, not a bunch of greens and pinks! Once again, I guess the filmmakers were banking on an audience that never saw the original.

This was just a stupid project that never should have gotten off the ground.

A remake of Alfred Hitchock's classic.

You know the plot--A woman (Anne Heche) steals a large amount of money so she and her boyfriend (Viggo Mortensen) can start a life together. During the drive to his town, it gets late and she decides to spend the night at a motel. It's called Bates Motel and she meets the owner Norman Bates (Vince Vaughn)...

To be totally honest I never liked the original. It was well-directed and pretty well-acted with a great music score and great direction--but I always found it kind of slow and dull. Still--this remake was not needed. Why a talented director like Gus van Sant chose to do this is beyond me. But FOR WHAT IT IS...it's actually pretty good.

It's NOT a frame by frame remake of the original like some people claim. Things are changed. Van Sant shot the murder scenes differently--a wise choice. Imitating Hitchcock's ones wouldn't have worked. Characters and situations are updated (purportedly Julianne Moore's character is supposed to be a lesbian--but I never caught that) and van Sant directs it (mostly) his way. A few times he does direct it the way Hitchcock would but not all the time.

Also the acting is almost uniformly great. Heche is very good in her role and Vaughn is (surprisingly) just terrific as Bates--he plays it differently than Anthony Perkins did and actually adds a new dimension to the character. He plays Norman as a little boy trapped in a man's body...but you also see the anger and violence lurking right underneath the surface. Strong support is given by Julianne Moore and William H. Macy (VERY good) in supporting roles. The only disappointment is Viggo Mortensen. I've never thought he was a good actor and this movie does nothing to change my mind. The southern accent he adopts is particularly silly.

I'm not really sure why but this movie seems to move faster than the original. I still think there was no point to remaking the original but I do like this. It was a HUGE critical and commercial bomb so I don't think we'll be seeing anymore Hitchcock remakes.

I give it a 7.

A horrendous film, ill-conceived and crude. The acting of Anne Heche and Vince Vaughan is so inferior to that of Perkins and Leigh in the original version they have to be seen to be believed. There was no reason to make this picture, which only highlights how accomplished and brilliant Hitchcock was, and how inimitable. Also, there's a creeping, pervasive insensitivity in the film that isn't there in the first film. Hitchcock's Psycho was scary and shocking, but one could genuinely feel for all concerned, even the pitiful Norman Bates. There were moments of pathos, irony and fey humor the remake doesn't have. One of the best things about Hitchcock's film was its incredible and intuitive depth and sense of nuance, of when to cut away and when to show something, on whether to use a close-up or long shot, on whether to make an actor sympathetic and when to make him frightening, and so forth. The remake has none of these qualities and doesn't even try for them. It's an idiotic exercise that I'm amazed even got released.

It was nice to have to sit through a lecture today at my University that was for once not about the original 'Psycho'. It was actually about the controversial remake by Gus Van Sant - a film that I've always been amazed at the negative reaction by older filmgoers around the world.

From the reaction in class today, it's nice to know that like me, there are plenty of people my age (in there mid 20's) who liked the original but like the remake even more just for trying something knew and appropriating a classic for the younger generation. So maybe in 40 years time this film will become a classic once the backlash has died down. After all, the original 'Psycho' was panned upon it's release and didn't achieve cult or classic status until the late 70's.

This really is not only an interesting film but also a very good one. Yeah, yeah, Vince Vaughn is no Anthony Perkins but who said he was supposed to be? He does a great job at re-interpreting the character as does over cast member in the film.

After watching the original film a few weeks ago, as much as I still like it, I find every character in the film - with the exception of Norman Bates - to be flat and very uninteresting.

John Gavin's performance in the original 'Psycho' was terrible as he was nothing but a man there to solve a mystery while the same character in the remake is a laid back cow-boy thanks to Viggo Mortensen. Julianne Moore's aggressive performance as the gay sister Lila makes Vera Miles' performance look like it would be better suited for a soap opera. Anne Heche makes for an interesting Marion Crane and comes across as far more 'human' than Janet Leigh did.

Take the amazing performances and add some surrealistic colour that is quite unique, plus some clever cinematography from Chris Doyle, Bernard Hermann's groovy score (in stereo!) and the result is a film that is creepy from an entertainment point of view and a fascinating film from an analytical point of view.

The original 'Psycho' was way before it's time and it's nice to know Van Sant was able to shoot some scene's off Hitchcock's original story boards that he wasn't allowed to film in 1960. This remake was never meant to be better than the original 'Psycho' but it was supposed to re-create something that cinema has lost these days and it pulled it off beautifully.

All those people who detest this film for simply being a remake of 'Psycho' really have no idea what film making is really about and should be very pleased that Gus Van Sant didn't turn 'Psycho' into a tacky 'slasher' film. He stuck to the original ideas and at the same time challenged us to open our minds a little. For these reasons, I love this film and am more than happy to give it a 10 OUT OF 10 (not that it will make much difference to the score of the film on the main page).

If it were not for Gus Van Sant's efforts to recreate Psycho, I probably would have not bothered to watch the original. Unfortunately, people from my generation tend to shy away from the classic films of the past and instead rent modern day action or romance flicks, only to be disappointed. Perhaps Van Sant was aware of this. In essence, what he has done is brought one of the all time greats to a new generation.

Of course, if you've seen the original before this one, it will not be as enjoyable. But for someone like me who hadn't, this movie was very entertaining. I particularly enjoyed the unexpected timing of events, and the way the roles of protagonist and antagonist changed throughout the film.

After watching the 1998 version I immediately went and rented the original, and I have to say I enjoyed it more. The major difference was Perkins. Vince Vaughn made a valiant effort but can hold a flame to Mr. Perkins. Nevertheless, if you tend to avoid black and white oldies, the 1998 version is a good place to start. Then you can decide if you want to see the original. 7/10

Van Sant copies Hitchcock's masterpiece shot for shot including some modern facets: a walkman, and nudity from Anne Heche. Unless you have a strong desire to see Ms. Heche naked there is absolutely NO reason to see this film instead of the original. Hitchcock's masterpiece is much better and Van Sant fails to realize that in hiding the nudity and the gore, the original shower scene is all the more terrifying. Ask Janet Leigh about that one. The acting is also much flatter and the technical aspects much less impressive.