TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Eric Stevenson I admit to not having seen the original "Psycho" for awhile, but I can't deny that this is just the same movie as the original. That movie existed before content ratings and it's interesting how this was rated R. I guess in black and white it doesn't look as graphic. I shouldn't tell you the plot because it's the same as the original movie. It's amazing how insulting this can be when the problem is that it's too much like the original. It's just a movie that has no reason to exist.The pacing seems slow and it's all stuff you've seen before. I mean, it's hard to even review this movie. What can I say that hasn't already been said about the original? We need variety and it would have been interesting to see how this departed from the original. A remake isn't supposed to be based on something. It's a retelling of something. *1/2

annuskavdpol A. Hitchcock is the original film-maker of Psycho. However this 1998 re-make is a good map of the original. There are a very details that I do not remember from the original happening. For example, in the 1998 re-make one of female main characters steals $400,000. This detail I do not recall in the original movie. Furthermore, I do not recall from the original that one of the main characters was in an extramarital affair with a man. These 2 elements in the 1998 Psycho seems to (in a way) justify the murder of the main female actress. These components were, as far as I remember not part of the original story. So this contrasts the original story. In the original movie, A. Hitchcock creates a lot of suspense through his sharp camera and cinematic detailing; whereas in the 1998 movie of the same title does not have the same effect on me. In the 1998 Psycho movie, it almost seems like the main female character that gets murdered is somewhat justified because she is an immoral (having an affair with a married man) as well as a criminal (stealing money from her organization) - I do not recall this being the case this the original. (At the same time, I believe Hitchcock was not concerned with moral issues; he was more concerned with film: suspense, camera work and art as a whole - this is a more positive thing to me).

Edith Hobbart 19 years after the original shock of seeing one of the great Hitchcock classics massacred by one of the greatest living directors, I sat to watch it again. Surprise, surprise. Gus Van Sant's daring attempt could have been another masterpiece if the casting of Norman Bates, in particular, had been more visionary and less opportunistic. Imagine what a break for an actor to re-invent that iconic character. Imagine what Heath Ledger, Billy Crudup, Ryan Gosling or Guy Pearce could have done with it. I'm sure that if you had been riveted rather than embarrassed by that characterization, if Vince Vaughn was more of a serious actor who understood the responsibility of his endeavor Van Sant's Psycho would have been a triumph.

Sardony Yes, I'm years behind in reviewing this (2016 for a 1998 movie), but it's on TV right now and I'm writing this after Norman cleans up the murder scene. I couldn't even get farther than that before I had to come here to express my displeasure, annoyance and embarrassment about this so-called remake.First off, Vince Vaughan is absolutely horrendous. He shows no more acting finesse, depth or imagination than a weak high school actor. And that's just judging him on his own merits. Compare his performance to Anthony Perkins' utterly stunning, nuanced performance of depth and complexity and the viewer feels either embarrassed or sorry for Vaughan taking on a role he simply hasn't got any caliber of chops to play. I wish I could've jumped onto the set two weeks into shooting and rescue him so he'd save face. That, or I want to slap him silly for thinking he could actually play this role.Anne Heche seems lost. She's neither full of anxiety nor cheerful nor proud. Somehow she TRIES to play each in moments but each comes across as insincere. Shallow. I see her acting, or trying to. Trying to squeeze out the emotion the director called for in each shot. But here, too: zero acting finesse. Just going thru the motions and hitting the marks with no real life going on inside.These two (and the real estate office co-worker, too) seem like awful Saturday Night Live performers trying their hand at drama. And, somehow every actor today (up to the point I watched this film) delivers his lines unnaturally. For a period I was in the kitchen only hearing Vaughan deliver his lines. Again, he sounded like a high school actor with no life behind the lines. Just throwing them out in a drab manner.And while one wants to admire Gus Van Sant because Gus Van Sant, I can only lower his career peg a few notches over this debacle. Hitchcock had - again, this word - finesse with his shots (with help from expert editing). Here, both directing and editing seem lackluster. While one would like to avoid comparisons between the two films and judge this one on its own, I cannot in this regard. In the original, I distinctly remember the combination of editing and directing causing brief shots to interrupt and flow with flawless tempo. For example, the shot through the shower curtain (after the stabbing) of the killer turning the corner out of the bathroom and out of view. In the original it's a quick flash and almost suggested, as if you happened to glance up from the dead body and you thought you saw something. In this version, Van Sant (and the editor) let the shot play out more fully, making the tempo clunky. There are countless examples of this. Even the bird picture falling off the wall seemed stilted.In the original, there's one shot I never read anyone mention in any review anywhere (look for this in the original): after Norman discovers the murder and goes into the office to grab a mop and bucket, he closes the office door. This always struck me as odd; why are we, the audience, left outside to look at a closed door? On closer examination of this peculiar shot of the closed door, I noticed the shadow of the roof eave on the door with its window make the very distinct shape of a guillotine! Ah! THAT's why Hitchcock had us wait outside with the door closed. To give us a sort of subliminal hint of death. In this remake, there's nothing anywhere close to such clever imagination.The film is still running in the other room as I now finish this. Will I continue to watch? Perhaps, for awhile. To see how bad the rest of it is. At least Anne Heche is out of the picture now.