In 1960 one of if not the greatest film directors, Alfred Hitchcock made a film called ‘Psycho.’
It is said to be the first slasher film. That of course is contentious due to terms and ideas of what it means to be a slasher film. But like many of the slasher series that came afterwards “Psycho” spawned a whole series. Plus a crappy remake BEFORE it was cool. Let’s go through them and see which ones to bother watching and which to skip.
*SPOILER WARNING AHEAD*
5.) Psycho (1960)
I know I say this a lot, but man these are hard to write. Have you seen the most famous film by Alfred ‘Freakin’ Hitchcock? NO?! Fix that!! If you have seen it do you really need me to explain why it’s so great? Of course you don’t. I’ll try my best though. “Psycho” was based on a book by Robert Bloch. Hitchcock felt there was something unique to this story. He also decided to film it in an interesting way by hiring the crew of his TV show “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” to make the film and keep cost down. The writer, Joseph Stefano came up with a great way to tell the story by centering the first 1/3rd of the film on Janet Leigh’s character, Marion Crane. With one of the most shocking surprise death scenes in film history. So much so that they had to ban anyone who came into the theater to see “Psycho” after the film began in order to keep the secret and drum up even more hype. Bernard Herman’s score is one of the most iconic scores in all of film history. Anthony Perkins plays Norman Bates with humanity which just makes the darker aspects of his character all the more deep. You really feel sorry for him even if you know the twist.
I guess the only new aspect I can add would be to throw my hat in the ring with my opinion of the debated therapist scene. In the end of the movie, it is revealed that Norman Bates is actually dressing up and pretending to be his mother to kill anyone (particularly women) who may try to upset the relationship he and his “mother” seem to have. Most critics feel that this scene should have been cut and was just explaining things to the audience that they could just tell from having sat through the movie. I can see that criticism and even Alfred Hitchcock’s initial instinct was to cut it out. However, the writer Joseph Stefano who had a personal history of psychoanalyst fought to have the scene included. He felt it was something most moviegoers would need to hear in order to understand. Honestly, beyond the dated reasons for including it I still find the scene interesting enough for building a more complete view of Norman. Also, on the editing side I feel it makes sense to have the exciting moment of the twist and then a quieter, somewhat dry scene. It’s telling you information, but it’s also letting you relax a little before its final shot of Norman in the prison cell. I personally feel this moment wouldn’t feel as effective if it didn’t have some time to build back up. But that’s just my two cents.
Eric’s advice: Hello! Hello anybody home, of course you watch the film Mcfly!
4.) Psycho II
It seems as soon as Alfred Hitchcock was laid to rest Hollywood decided we needed another “Psycho” film. In the years leading up to finally watching this myself I had mostly heard how good this film is, which is odd for such a late sequel to a classic. Seeing it for myself I have to admit it is much better than it has any right to be. Doesn’t make it as good as “Psycho” or even just a great film on its own, but it’s still pretty good. I wouldn’t mind seeing it again. A thing to note though is unlike the original film which was a pretty faithful adaptation of the book, this “Psycho 2” has no relation to the novel of the same name written by the original author. Amazingly Anthony Perkins and Vera Miles return as Norman Bates and Lila Crane respectively. While it is weird to see them in color it still mostly feels like them (I’ll get to that) and helps this seem like an official continuation. The story is that after all of this time Norman is being released apparently completely rehabilitated. Lila Crane doesn’t believe it, but there’s not much for her to do. Norman returns to his home and motel, gets a job as a fry cook at a diner. It’s there he meets a young woman Mary (Meg Tilly) and they start a little relationship while trying to maintain a normal life. Strange things begin to happen until finally dead bodies begin to pile while Norman fears he’s lost his mind again.
Mary after having developed true feelings for Norman tries to help him understand it’s all fake. She knows this because she and her mother Lila Crane have been trying to make him relapse. However, after someone dressed in all black murders Lila it becomes clear someone else may be after Norman. A majority of the most interesting things about the movie are the things I wish got more focus. I think the idea of taking the strong, likeable heroine of the last film and making her into a villain due to her becoming obsessed over this wrong that was done to her sister is intriguing. In that regard it’s kinda like the “Planet of the Apes” remake except A.) this is still a good movie on its own and B.) there’s no better version out there that actually does focus on the fascinating parts this just hints at… for now. I think the most interesting parts as is are how most of the big “scare” moments are about Norman NOT doing typical slasher actions. He sees a butcher’s knife and has the chance to kill someone and the music blares, but he has to fight this impulse. That certainly made it more interesting than most slasher films.
Eric’s advice: Watch if curious.
3.) Psycho III
The low point of the original series for several reasons. I have to admit the setup is interesting. Imagine you’re just looking to work and to keep a low profile and happen to find a job at an old out-of-the-way motel. Everything seems alright until you realize your boss is none other than Norman Bates. Talk about a boss from hell. We also have the story of a disgraced nun also looking for a job. She begins to develop feelings for an apparently similar lost soul, but again in this case that lost soul being Norman Bates. Talk about a date from he… well you get the idea. We also have a local reporter trying to uncover the deaths from “Psycho 2” which only takes place a few months before this story. Anthony Perkins again slips back into the role perfectly although this time he also steps into the directing chair. Let me tell you this film has all of the symptoms you might expect of that.
Whereas “Psycho 2” tried to go its own way for better or worst this film feels more like a rehash of the original. There are a lot of recreated shots and sequences. I get why any filmmaker is drawn to recreate Hitchcock, but it causes this film to lose some of its own identity. We also get a number of those extremely artsy shots that just scream new director wanting to make sure his style is noticed. A particularly effective one being when Norman is disposing of a dead body at night. The screen is pitch black with only the white light forming an outline of Norman being visible. Kudos to the cinematographer on that one. While those things I mentioned are good or at the very least interesting there’s also a lot that doesn’t work. The relationship between the nun and Norman isn’t as developed as it could have been. Worst of all is the character of the reporter. And you know what? I SHOULD like her or at the very least be invested with her as she is doing the right thing and trying to uncover the truth. The problem is just how annoying she is with how preachy she acts. Ya I was rooting for the serial killer over her. Also, despite how much of a thoroughly unlikable person they make her, I think the film actually thought we’d be cheering for her or worried she die. I was neither. The whole film just feels like a big step backwards from the last film.
Eric’s advice: Skip it.
Click to see the last entries!
2.) Psycho IV: The Beginning
I give Mick Garris a lot of crap and in interviews he seems like such a nice guy so I feel bad. But I’ll give him this, this is a better film than “Psycho 3” and a much better way to end the franchise on. There is an interesting set-up here for a story a radio DJ gets an unusual call during her show and slowly realizes that she’s talking to THE Norman Bates. Once again he’s been released, gotten married to a therapist and they’re expecting a child that he worries will be insane like him. She also suspects that he’s planning to kill again. To try and keep people safe she keeps him on the air and a majority of the film is made up of flashbacks to his young life. Young Norman is played by Henry Thomas (Elliot from “E.T.”) with Norma Bates played by Olivia Hussey. She and really the entire cast are really good. I would guess that despite this being a made-for-TV movie the fact that the screenplay is written by the original film’s writer, Joseph Stefano made it feel alluring for the actors. The film does a good job of getting us invested in young Norman’s plight. Overall I’d just call the film okay. It doesn’t have anything in the way of scares really. However, the ending is happy and after all he’s been through it is nice to see the series end on a better note. So Mick Garris, you did alright.
Eric’s advice: As far as horror prequels go… this is still unnecessary, but give it a watch if you’re really curious it’s not terrible.
1.) Psycho (1999)
There are two approaches to remakes. One where you basically make a totally different movie that just happens to have the same name as an earlier film. Or where you essentially just copy the older movie with newer filming techniques and actors. Both can work, but both can also be a recipe for bad remakes. More so the second example because you’re not showing much imagination. It really brings the common criticism of remakes in general to the forefront. Why bother making the same thing again? When asked this question director Gus Van Sant simply replied, “so no one else would have to.” In 1998, Van Sant not only decided to remake one of the most famous movies by one of the most famous directors, but to make what is essentially a shot-for-shot remake. Some complain about that term being applied here and yes not ALL of the shots are exactly the same. Still, it’s close enough for this to be incredibly pointless. I typically refer to this film as a fascinating train-wreck, like the train somehow gets airborne and does a few flips in this wreck.
Because it is an interesting experiment to see modern filmmakers recreate whole scenes from a classic film while trying to get as much of it as exact as possible. I’ll go so far as to say I’m sure this was a fun yet challenging filmmaking experiment for Van Sant. Sadly it doesn’t translate into that fun of a viewing experience for the viewer. The novelty wears off pretty fast. They add some dumb things like random shots of lighting during the famous shower sequence. Also, making it clear that Norman is masturbating while watching Marion through the hole in the wall. However, these to me are not really the damning things about this remake. It is the casting. This film is a treasure-trove of miscasting. It’s full of great actors like Viggo Mortensen and Julianne Moore plus Anne Heche. Who are all just so miscast in this film. As you watch it all you can think about is how much better the other actors were because you have the successful example in your mind. Plus since they’re not changing the script other than maybe one or two lines of dialog from an original movie that came from a more theatrical way of talking and presenting dialog these modern actors just don’t have it to make it sound normal. All of this is excluding William H Macy as the private eye, Arbogast. He perfectly sounds appropriately in keeping with modern acting and the older 60s style. I’m not sure how he does it, but is all of the roles were cast this well then maybe this remake could be its own OK remake.
It would still have the problem having no reason to exist, but at least it could be seen as its own interesting experience. But no. Not only that we have one of the worst miscastings in probably the single most important role that they had to get right and they failed big time. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates. Now a thing to remember he wasn’t that well-known at the time. He hadn’t started doing his really zany Frat Pack comedies yet so at the time it wasn’t THAT strange to have him in this role. It was still a mistake because Vaughn is trying WAY too hard to seem crazy and creepy. Anthony Perkins brought a real sincere quality to the role that is totally absent from Vaughn’s take. I truly can’t see what Van Sant saw in his vacuous expressions, but man is this one major miscalculation. So all we’re left is not only a bad remake of a great film, but one that doesn’t even really have a reason to exist. Much like the remake of “The Haunting” the only thing the remake does better than the original is the poster. To the point I wish the remake’s poster WAS the poster to the original film.
Eric’s advice: Only see if you’re really curious about this experiment and even then only see ONCE.
Honorable Mention: “Bates Motel”
Much like my Hannibal Lecter series guide there is a TV show that I know a lot of people really enjoy. However, I haven’t seen it so again if you really want to hear me discuss it then you tell me.
Eric’s opinion: N/A.