Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

cwade22 The ONLY person who deserved to be killed was that irritating nosey reporter! Norman killed everybody(minus Maureen) but at the end, he HAD to kill the reporter but didn't! Why?! He's have been free. I hated Her annoying character. Reminds me of a lot of weasels in corporate media, today. Too bad.

slimer8489 I don't get it. Wherever I go, it seems like everyone is bashing Psycho II, yet praising Psycho III. Even Roger Ebert liked this movie... Why?This is pretty much the first film, but with tons of gore, in color, and made in the '80s. Don't believe me? Well, we've got Norman looking through the peephole, we got a scene that imitates the famous shower scene, and even part of the plot deals with a woman who resembles Marion Crane and shares the same initials as her. Also, this film tries to do WAY too much. Okay, so we got an ex- nun on the run because she doesn't believe in God, some future rock star who applies at the Bates Motel, a snoopy reporter trying to dig up information from the previous two movies, and Norman Bates thrown in there somewhere. A lot of things didn't make sense, like why the aforementioned future rock star suddenly went crazy. Usually, with an unexpected crazy person, there are subtle hints. But not here! He just randomly goes crazy. Also, why did the Marion Crane lookalike suddenly go back to the Bates Motel? She pretty much found out from the reporter that Norman is a nutcase, so that's what drove her away. Then, in the next scene, she's talking with a priest or something, saying, "I must go back!" or something. It would have been interesting to have her reasoning for going back because Norman is proof of God existing, since he's like the Devil, but as I recall, the lady didn't have a motive to go back. She just randomly did it. And then, we have Norman going on a rampage and killing people. Oh, where have I seen that before? I did find the ending quite surprising, as (spoiler alert) Norman actually decapitates the head of his mother's corpse, suggesting that he is now set free from his demons. But then, at the last second, they cop out and have Norman pull that evil grin again. In the first one, it was terrifying. But here, it feels so tacked on, just like the peephole scene.But there were some things I liked, like how some of the supporting characters from Psycho II return, like the cop who was sympathetic with Norman. But this guy does have one stupid line of dialogue, and that comes at the end, when Norman is finally being arrested. He's like "I was for you, Norman. I believed in you." Really? This is the second time this has happened in recent times and you still believed in him. True, Norman wasn't really behind the killings in Psycho II, but still. He should have been feeling a bit suspicious by this point. Also, I liked how Anthony Perkins took over the role as director. I mean, if there's anyone who knows Norman Bates, it's him. And finally, I liked how they immediately discard that stupid retcon from the end of Psycho II, and Norma's sister never gave birth to Norman. But those weren't enough to save this movie.So, Psycho III. It's an overrated sequel that doesn't really do anything new with the plot. I don't recommend it.Also, am I the only one who thinks the poster looks silly? Norman has the keys in his hand and he's making a goofy face that looks like he's saying, "Look! I got the keys! Guess what I'm gonna do now!?"

Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki The opening, a girl shouting "There is no God!" against a plain black background, was a clear indication that this film was going to be played for cheap shocks and nothing more.Mostly pointless sequel attempt to turn Bates into a generic '80s slasher. One month after the events in part II, the police investigation is closing in on Bates for the murder he committed at the end of that film, while ex-nun, who has just recently left the convent, turns up just to complicate matters for Norman. Entire film is thinly based on premise from part 2: Bates is not able to stop killing, even though he may genuinely want to, because his surroundings drive him to it. Perhaps if he left the motel, which, as I said in my comment about Psycho II, should have been demolished decades earlier, especially considering the fact that Bates said (in the original film) that there had hardly been anyone in the motel since the new highway had been built, in the latter part of the 1950s!

David Massey For those of you that thought making a sequel to 'Psycho' was a disastrous, shark-jumping moment in cinema history, you ain't seen nothing' yet. On Valentine's Day, 1986, first-time director, Anthony Perkins (Norman Bates himself), released 'Psycho 3' and, at the time, no one cared. It's a shame because, unlike 'Psycho 2' – which spent a lot of time and energy reproducing and imitating Hitchcock - this is a totally new and much darker take on a scenario that we already know quite well.If you haven't seen the previous 'Psycho' films, there are a number of sub-plots and asides in 'Psycho 3' that will mean absolutely nothing to you. It is a film that really hinges on all the previous elements and as careful as I was in my 'Psycho 2' review not to reveal all the twist and turns, it was all for not because 'Psycho 3' defiantly unravels every one of them.Much like the original, the film starts with a woman running away. This time it's a very disturbed nun who has left her convent having lost her faith in God and her will to live. Janet Leigh look-alike, Maureen Coyle (Diana Scarwid - 'Mommie Dearest' / 'Rumble Fish') treks across the desert where she is picked up by a very sleazy Jeff Fahey ('The Lawnmower Man' / 'Body Parts'). The two wanderers end up checking into the Bates Motel and, by now, you should have a hint at what's in store for them.There are a few attempts at building on the 'Psycho' mythology but there aren't any big surprises and there really isn't one over-arching story (unless you take the previous films into account). Here's a rundown of the sub-plots tied in: 1.) Maureen has lost all direction and Norman feels sorry for her so they go on a date before she gets killed. 2.) Duke, Fahey's character, is working his way out to L.A. where he's going to be a big rock star. He learns a bit more about Norman than he should and tries to use this to his advantage. 3.) There's a reporter trying to discredit Norman's sanity and disprove the truth about Norman's mother (one of the twists from 'Psycho 2'). 4.) The Bates Motel is full of guests for once and Norman has to sneak around killing them (for no reason).What's so different about this sequel? For starters, I'm not really sure who the main character is. Unlike the previous sequel, Norman doesn't seem to be conflicted any longer; he's back to taxidermy, he's got 'Mother' back, he's peeking through holes in bathroom walls, and he's quick to kill. Maureen barely has any screen time and, though she is introduced as a possible heroin, her character doesn't really go anywhere (a la Marian Crane). Duke is too repellant to root for (but gets more screen time than almost anyone). So, oddly enough, the closest we're given to a protagonist is Roberta Maxwell's ('Popeye' / 'Philadelphia') reporter who is the least interesting character with the biggest payoff.All in all, this is the most sequeley sequel you will ever see and that should be enough to spark your curiosity.