Login
Posted : 3 years, 10 months ago on 10 June 2020 05:41
No me gusto la original porque si bien es muchísimo mejor que las películas de terror modernas, el único personaje que desarrollan es a Norman, el resto se resumen en "hay que resolver el misterio" y esto es especialmente malo en Marion que roba una cantidad de dinero pero nunca se molestan en explicar porque esta dispuesta a cometer este crimen. Entonces esta nueva versión pudo haber arreglado esas cosas, pero no, fue un "hagamos la misma película pero a color" hasta con las escenas de asesinatos, que se ven aun mas falsas que la original (y no, no considero que la época sea excusa)
Por lo menos le doy crédito que el final no fue tomar al asesino por detrás y ya.
4/10
Psycho Reviews
An average movie
Posted : 13 years, 1 month ago on 23 March 2011 11:22
After delivering his most popular movie so far (‘Good Will Hunting’), Gus Van Sant managed to deliver his least popular directing effort. Well, to be honest, I don’t think it was really so bad after all. I mean, obviously, when you watch this movie, you wonder if it was really necessary. But, then, you could say the same thing about 99.9% of the remakes out here. If you ever plan to watch the damned thing, my advise would be to just let it go and simply give it a try. Anyway, even though it might sound surprising, I thought it was actually not bad at all. I have to admit it it, it probably did help that I hadn’t watch the original for ages but it is and remains a really entertaining and fascinating story. Of course, Vince Vaughn was not as impressive as Anthony Perkins was but I think he actually delivered a decent job. In this movie, however, the best actor was ultimately William H. Macy who gave a very good performance. Eventually, the only real flaw in my opinion was that you could figure out what was going with Norman Bates way too easily. Indeed, my wife actually never saw the original version but she figured it out after seeing Norman Bates for only 5 minutes on the screen. A part from that, the movie was actually rather enjoyable and even though I am obviously in the minority, I think it was a rather interesting experiment.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Ultimately a bitch-slap towards Hitchcock and co..
Posted : 13 years, 7 months ago on 13 September 2010 11:38
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!
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 : 14 years, 8 months ago on 20 August 2009 01:29
"A boy's best friend is his mother."
Even in 2015, simply the notion of remaking Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho seems every bit as ill-advised, pointless and idiotic as it did back in the 1990s. Why waste time and money to remake perfection? This "why" can admittedly be addressed in a financial sense, since Universal likely assumed that there would be a built-in audience of curious fans and oblivious film-goers. However, there is no artistic motive to remake Psycho, especially with director Gus Van Sant staging a scene-for-scene, almost shot-for-shot aping of Hitchcock's original, except now it's in colour, stars a more modern cast, and is supported by a generous budget. A mostly limp, paint-by-numbers bore, 1998's Psycho is still every bit as dreadful as ever, with the film's shonky reputation now speaking for itself.
A real estate secretary earning a thankless wage who yearns to do more with her life, Marion Crane (Anne Heche) is entrusted by her employer to deposit $400,000 in the bank. (For those keeping score, it was only $40,000 in the original.) However, Marion perceives the sizeable sum of money as an opportunity for a fresh start, impulsively deciding to steal it and run. En route to visit her boyfriend Sam (Viggo Mortensen), an exhausted Marion pulls into the Bates Motel on a rainy evening, where she meets proprietor Norman Bates (Vince 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 close to her, private investigator Milton Arbogast (William H. Macy) is recruited to hopefully put an end to the mystery.
Ironically, Van Sant once stated in a Newsweek article that he detests remake. In fact (irony of all ironies), he calls his Psycho an "anti-remake film." But producing something comparable to his ambitions requires a deft touch that simply eludes Van Sant, with the picture bearing no evidence of satire underneath its surface. It's just extremely dreary and meaningless.
Remakes are not inherently bad, as some remakes have successfully produced a new, exciting interpretation of older material. Hell, recycling ideas and stories has been a staple of Hollywood since cinema's inception - Akira Kurosawa's samurai masterpiece Yojimbo was remade as both A Fistful of Dollars and Last Man Standing, while John Sturges' The Magnificent Seven was a western appropriation of Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. But Hitchcock's Psycho does not possess the type of transcendent premise that easily yields itself to a new reimagining, and apparently Van Sant himself even knew this. Thus, Van Sant actually re-uses Joseph Stefano's screenplay for the original film, making a few minor changes along the way. Moreover, with Van Sant wanting to produce a shot-for-shot recreation, he constantly referred back to Hitchcock's film on-set, asking the performers to mimic movements to the best of their abilities.
Granted, if Van Sant made any major alterations, it may have alienated Hitchcock purists, but at least the project would have been bolder and more compelling. What if the entire story was told from Norman's perspective? What if Van Sant produced a page-for-page translation of Robert Bloch's source novel? Instead, this Psycho is tragically gutless, with small changes that are detrimental if anything. There is some rear nudity, for instance, the setting is modernised, and Norman is unmistakably masturbating as he peeps on Marion. Thus, the movie copies Hitchcock without paying heed of his "less is more" approach. How ironic. Here's the big problem: even if you want to praise something 1998's Psycho, you would be much better off praising the Hitchcock film. In fact, you'd be better off just watching the Hitchcock film as opposed to this drivel. Furthermore, one of the biggest reasons for Psycho's success in 1960 was because of how bold, original and unexpected it was, with strict cinema policies to avoid spoiling any surprises. But the twists are well-known now, lessening this remake's impact, especially since it lacks unexpected twists of its own.
With Van Sant determined to include every line and pause from Hitchcock's original, nothing flows naturally; it all feels very awkward, with lines and actions included perfunctorily rather than organically. To be sure, the presentation is professional, as to be expected from the budget, while Danny Elfman recreates every cue of Bernard Herrmann's original compositions in rousing stereo. But with the film feeling so forced, this incarnation of Psycho is not particularly thrilling or scary, playing out in a slapdash fashion. Added to this, the movie feels strangely humdrum in colour, whereas Hitchcock's stylish black and white photography enhanced his film's unnerving mood. Even the remade shower scene is an absolute dud, lacking the immediacy of the original film. Almost all shots are recreated (though pointless flashes of a stormy sky are thrown in as well), adding up to nothing except a lifeless imitation, much like the rest of the movie. Motion pictures are supposed to constantly evolve, with script revisions in pre-production and on-set, while editors continuously tinker with a movie in post-production, adding and removing shots, scenes or lines of dialogue. This is exactly why this Psycho never works, as it's too closely tethered to the original movie, stuck with moments that worked for Hitchcock's film but are simply ineffective here.
The performances are another issue, as the cast play surface-level impersonations of their characters instead of embodying them. Heche pales in comparison to Janet Leigh, and is unable to recite lines without sounding hopelessly forced. Mortensen is equally weak, and frequently sounds as if he's just reciting lines from nearby cue cards, though Julianne Moore and William H. Macy do fare slightly better. Most lamentably, Vaughn is unable to present a truly compelling interpretation of Norman Bates, despite his attempts to imitate a number of Anthony Perkins' mannerisms. It's actually quite amusing to look back at Vaughn trying his hand at a serious performance here, since he now works exclusively in comedy, and the notion of Vaughn in a straight-faced drama or thriller is sure to provoke ridicule. Vaughn fails to breath life into his portrayal of Bates, spouting the original dialogue in an often unconvincing fashion.
The makers of 1998's Psycho obviously wanted to pay tribute to Hitchcock's exceptional work, but the film comes across as more of an expensive self-indulgent exercise - it was, after all, undoubtedly more fun for Van Sant and crew to make the film than it will be for an anybody to watch the fruit of their labours. All these years on, this remake is only worth watching as a historical curiosity, though there probably is an audience of young modern movie-goers who would prefer to watch this newer, colour version of Psycho over the "old" original. With its critical mauling, terrible reputation and box office failure, 1998's Psycho has only served one useful purpose: It has discouraged other studios and filmmakers from doing another remake of Hitch's untouchable classic.
4.2/10
0 comments, Reply to this entry