Psycho Reviews

An average movie

Posted : 2 years, 2 months ago on 23 March 2011 06:22

When you watch this, the first question that pops in your mind is "Was this remake really necessary?". Of course not! But then this answer could be say about 99.9% of the remakes. After making this conclusion, my advise is just to let it go and "try" watching this picture. Honestly, it wasn't bad at all. Of course, Vince Vaughn is no Anthony Perkins but he does a decent job. The best actor was ultimately William H. Macy who gives a very good perfomance. The only real flaw was that you could figure out what was going with Norman Bates pretty easily. My wife never saw the original version and understood it after seeing Norman Bates only 5 minutes on the screen. A part from that, the movie is rather enjoyable and I may be in the minority but I consider it a rather interesting experiment.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Ultimately a bitch-slap towards Hitchcock and co..

Posted : 2 years, 8 months ago on 13 September 2010 06:38

For years I was always in denial of whether to watch this or not but only a few days ago, I had this random desperate urge to watch it. I was going into this film sort of knowing that it was going to be crap anyway but there were a few key moments where it was just awful and it did step over the line. I shall give you an example: the Norman Bates masturbation scene. What the f**k?! That is insulting to the original film and to call itself a 'remake' is beyond belief! Regrettably, this is more of a rip-off/spoof and awful duplicate of the 1960 version more than a remake and also most of the cast and crew involved in the film hadn't even seen the original version so that is just hopeless and stupid!


Well, I'm gonna keep this short and just say what the film is about because it is exactly the same as the original: a woman runs off with $40,000 from her boss, ends up staying in a motel and gets killed in the shower by a mysterious person. Get it? So, as for the acting in the film that featured the likes of Vince Vaughn as Norman, Anne Heche as Marion, Julianne Moore as Lila, Viggo Mortensen as Sam and William H. Macy as Detective Arbogast. Vince Vaughn was just awful as Norman Bates! I mean, the man didn't even try to bring something different to Norman because not only was he obviously saying the same in the original seeing as the script is the same but because of that, he was trying to copy Anthony Perkins actions as Norman during the scenes as well as how he would speak and that was just epic fail! Must ask this: did Anne Heche even audition for the part of Marion or was she a random woman off the street? Well, I think I am more convinced by the latter because she hadn't even seen the original Hitchcock version nor read the book so goes to show what she knows about the original and the character she is playing. Viggo Mortensen was disappointing as Sam Loomis and Julianne Moore who can be both brilliant and awful in her films but I am afraid to say that she was the wrong choice for Lila Crane! Despite that Lila wasn't the one who was murdered in the shower, she is an iconic character too but I would say that perhaps a more attractive and more talented actress could play her; like someone better should have played Norman and Marion.


Now onto the direction of the film: Gus Van Sant is a director that I did have good respect for; films such as Good Will Hunting and Milk but now after making the Psycho 'remake', that has all gone! I never thought a director who has been nominated for an Oscar would agree to make a film that is copying exactly off Psycho of all films and ultimately failing! I mean, he does show how awesome the original version is because of how awful the 'remake' was by doing exactly the same but nowhere near as good. He even uses the original DVD and plays it during filming of the remake so that makes it worse! I was pretty surprised about Danny Elfman being the composer of the film. Yeah, there's Bernard Hermann's original music of the film but Elfman did adapt it a tiny bit but that didn't even save the film. Well, I'm just gonna say that the script was awesome because it is awesome but I can't give the film any higher rating for that because there was no attempt to make any difference or to improve on it.


I mean, the fact that this was filmed in colour didn't even save the film. I think perhaps the reason for making this was so the new generation especially young teenagers would be persuaded to watch the original version. Now, that is a really bad idea because there is nothing good about this film and there's nothing wrong with the original. It was like a slasher film and since when has Psycho original film and even the book for that matter ever been a slasher film?! This isn't a spoiler so I'm just going to say it: when the ending credits rolled it said 'In Memory Of Alfred Hitchcock' and I paused the film and stared at it! How dare Gus Van Sant say that when he has remade something that is more like a bitch-slap towards Hitchcock, the cast and the rest of the crew in the original film?!


Overall, Psycho is an absolutely disgraceful disaster that can hardly call itself a remake let alone a film! If it shows us anything, it shows us that some films just aren't meant to be remade and it just shows how pointless some remakes really can be! The 'remake' is one of the worst films of all time but the original is one of the best films of all time which is a weird thing to admit despite both films feature the same characters, same shots and camera angles and music. Probably the first film that I would automatically call a 'lazyarse' film because there really is just no effort or even enjoyment for that matter! It was plain awful and just pointless from beginning to end. It should have earned all the Razzie glory because that's what its worth and rightly deserves!

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Gus Van Sant is the Psycho here!

Posted : 3 years, 9 months ago on 20 August 2009 08:29

"A boy's best friend is his mother."

This reviewer's thoughts on Gus Van Sant's remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (as well as the sentiments of virtually every critic and movie-goer in the world) can be summarised using one word and a bit of punctuation: Why?!

This "why" can be addressed in a financial sense, but in terms of artistry the concept of remaking perfection remains baffling. Director Van Sant has proved that a bunch of Hollywood heavyweights can indeed use $25 million and colour photography to mimic a classic, but he failed to prove his ability to capture the terrifying essence of said classic. It appears there are only two audiences for this Psycho remake: those familiar with Hitchcock's film who are morbidly curious, and newcomers to the story willing to give this edition a chance because it's in colour and stars a more modern cast.

Since Joseph Stefano's original script was used here (only slightly altered), we all know the story: Marion Crane (Heche) is entrusted by her employer to deposit $400,000 in the bank (for those keeping track, it was only $40,000 in the original). However Marion perceives this phenomenal sum of money as a way to start off fresh, and decides to embezzle it. En route to visit her boyfriend Sam Loomis (Heche), she pulls into the Bates Motel where she meets proprietor Norman Bates (Vaughn). Events of this evening eventually turn violent, with the jealous rage of Norman's twisted mother putting an end to Marion's plans. Once Marion's disappearance becomes worrisome to those closest to her, an investigation commences.

Remakes come in all shapes, sizes and colours. Successful remakes employ older material and do something new, interesting, and/or intelligent with it (like The Magnificent Seven; a Western appropriation of Akira Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai). 1998's Psycho does nothing of the sort. Director Van Sant obviously knew he couldn't improve upon Hitchcock's masterpiece, so he decided to just copy it instead (virtually shot-for-shot and line-for-line). A few alterations were made to the original script (mostly to the detriment of the film - the most egregious addition is Norman visibly masturbating while peeping on Marion through a hole in the wall), but for the most part it's the same. Interestingly, this film is set in the year 1998, but the fashion and set decoration would make one think it's 1968!

When Hitchcock himself remade his own films (as he did with The Man Who Knew Too Much), he had the good sense not to replicate the earlier version. He instead took the good ideas and ran with them. Gus Van Sant may have alienated Hitchcock purists if any major alterations to the story were made for this Psycho remake, but he would have made a far more compelling film at least. Here's the major problem with Van Sant's film: even if you wanted to praise something about it - the cinematography, the pacing, the music, the storyline, the dialogue, or even Saul Bass' design for the opening credits - you'd be better off praising the original. The sense of déjà vu while viewing this carbon copy is powerful, as is the sense that something isn't quite right.

As "accurate" as this Psycho is, it's not particularly terrifying or thrilling. It's a lifeless, slapdash project with all tension leeched away. It's also in colour. Hitchcock opted for black and white photography all those decades ago because the starkness of monochrome enhanced the movie's shock value. Colour, on the other hand, makes Psycho seem ordinary. In addition, Van Sant does a woeful job of refilming the infamous shower scene. He copies a lot of the camera angles and much of the editing from the original sequence, but speeds up the film and (in MTV fashion) inserts a few pointless flashes of a stormy sky as well as an extreme close-up of Heche's iris opening. The shrieking violins of Bernard Herrmann's score are inexplicably altered too. In addition, more blood flows from visible stab wounds, but it doesn't make the sequence any scarier or more shocking - if anything, it shows how masterful Hitchcock was for being able to do more with less. Disappointingly and astonishingly, the blood here looks faker than the chocolate syrup used in Hitchcock's original.

The performances are another issue. Only Julianne Moore and William H. Macy (as characters once portrayed by Vera Miles and Martin Balsam) hold their own and bring at least a slight degree of intensity to their roles. Anne Heche as Marion Crane pales in comparison to Janet Leigh - she's very contrived. Viggo Mortensen is a weak Sam Loomis, and frequently sounds as if he's just reciting lines from nearby cue cards. Most lamentably, Vince Vaughn is unable to present a truly compelling interpretation of Norman Bates (despite his attempts to imitate a number of Anthony Perkins' mannerisms). The main problem with the cast is that they're just playing surface impersonations of their characters instead of embodying them.

Ironically, Van Sant stated in a Newsweek article that he hates remake. In fact (irony of all ironies), he calls his Psycho an "anti-remake film". "Why do people take films that are really well done and change the dialogue and change the shots and call it the same movie?" he asked. In theory, he's correct, but it's doubtful that the answer is to mimic a "really well done" film and call it an "anti-remake film".

It's possible to argue that since this remake is more or less the same film as Hitchcock's original, there isn't anything truly wrong with it. But this argument is utter nonsense because there's plenty wrong with it - Van Sant's direction is lifeless, the performances are tragically unremarkable, and as a standalone feature it's poorly made and lacks tension. Nothing flows naturally; it all feels very awkward, with lines and actions included perfunctorily rather than organically. 1998's Psycho does, however, effectively prove that it wasn't the technical aspects of Hitchcock's masterpieces that made them so great - Hitchcock relied on originality, plot and unexpected twists. Van Sant's remake is humdrum because it has none of these.

The makers of this film obviously wanted to pay tribute to Hitchcock's work, but the film is more of a self-indulgent exercise (it was undoubtedly more stimulating for Van Sant and crew to make the film than it is for an audience to watch it). Psycho simply gives a new generation of movie-goers (who are already ignorant of classic movies) another reason not to see Hitchcock's original. As far as the future is concerned, this Psycho will become little more than a footnote in cinematic history.

The end credits are tagged with the words "In Memory of Alfred Hitchcock" which is an official insult.

1.5/10

0 comments, Reply to this entry

WASTE OF EVERYTHING

Posted : 4 years ago on 1 May 2009 03:41

This was a HUGE mistake by a good director. Who could have possibly thought this was a good idea? I hope someone got fired.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Psycho review

Posted : 5 years, 4 months ago on 10 January 2008 02:03

Vince Vaughn is not Anthony Perkins.

0 comments, Reply to this entry