Login
Psycho II is a fairly good sequel to the classic thriller Psycho. It is a sequel that is basically the first film all over again because Norman plays the innocent and "mother" kills. The only difference is that we know that Norman is the killer whereas we didn't in the first film. Psycho II is the sequel of a classic that not many people seem to fully appreciate. No, it isn't good and it isn't bad neither but this was made like it was more for scares and entertainment not to relive the reputation of the classic that was Psycho. I found it almost as tense as the first film was especially when we see Norman holding a kitchen knife, when people enter his house or live with him whether it's in the Bates house or inside the motel. It is weird seeing the actual Bates house in a colour effect whereas it was black and white in the original and first adaptation. I don't think Psycho is a franchise really. Yes, it does have more than one film with it but maybe it is a bit like a spoof to the first film and spoofs don't make good trilogies at all.
Anthony Perkins shows once again that he is the only actor who can portray Norman Bates properly. Maybe Christian Bale would have been a good Norman Bates in modern days after seeing him in American Psycho. Perkins is 23 years older in the sequel. He was 26 in the first film but he is 49 in the sequel. Norman is back to no good again especially having Mary living with him who is the daughter of Lila Loomis previously known as Lila Crane who was the sister of Norman's shower victim Marion Crane. Vera Miles brings a really good return after 23 years portraying Lila. She seems to want revenge on Norman for her sister's murder. She tries to warn her daughter from Mary from getting too close to Norman and to not live with him because of what he did in the past and how crazy he really is. The directing wasn't very good and I am ever so glad that Hitchcock wasn't here to see it. I feel the same thing about the remake that neither Anthony Perkins nor Alfred Hitchcock were able to see that and how awful it was and both would have been angry and embarrassed because of the film they made together.
The director makes this film like the first one all over again but in a bad way with bad filmmaking. It would have been better to have just left the first one but I am still glad I got the opportunity to see this film. I am now curious about Psycho IV: The Beginning because I want to know the truth of why Norman is the way he is regarding his psychotic ways and his split personality between himself and his mother. This is a film that sort of rips off Hitchcock's classic and memorable work of Psycho and also Anthony Perkins' previous performance as Norman even though he was still involved in this film. Psycho II is a mediocre sequel to its classic previous film that is neither good nor bad. The story is fairly interesting but has too much about the first film in it. So to me, I will now feel that there is only one film about Norman Bates. To be fair this one was far more predictable than the first one was because the first one had two twists which is very rare of a film to do so.
Psycho II is a sequel that I would prefer to not watch again but one that I wouldn't call bad nor good. It is a flawed sequel that wasn't greatly filmed and didn't have as many interesting characters apart from Norman of course. The first film is one of my 10 favourite films of all time and Psycho II is an average sequel to such a classic film!
5/10
