Anna Rydell returns home to her sister (and best friend) Alex after a stint in a mental hospital, though her recovery is jeopardized thanks to her cruel stepmother, aloof father, and the presence of a ghost in their home.
Eight unsuspecting high school seniors at a posh boarding school, who delight themselves on playing games of lies, come face-to-face with terror and learn that nobody believes a liar - even when they're telling the truth.
Rachel Carlson, a successful novelist moves to a small Scottish village to move on with her life after the death of her son. Strange things start to happen when she is haunted by ghosts and real life terror.
Henry Ian Cusick,
Marion Crane steals a lot of cash from a man whom her boss is in business with. On the way to see her boyfriend, she stops off by an old motel, run by the odd Norman Bates. She is murdered in the shower. Her sister, boyfriend, and a private investigator try to find out where she is, while we learn more about Norman Bates. Written by
Jordan Sharp <firstname.lastname@example.org>
When remaking Psycho (1960), Gus Van Sant wanted to flesh the supporting characters more, because one thing he didn't like about the original film was that Norman was the only fully developed character, while everyone else was portrayed to advance the plot. He relied on the actors to develop their motivations more fully. William H. Macy tried to play Arbogast as Martin Balsam did, but Vince Vaughn and Julianne Moore tried to interpret their roles differently to the way Anthony Perkins and Vera Miles played them. For example, Moore made Lila more aggressive. Also, the psychiatrist's long-winded description of Norman's condition was shortened in Van Sant's version. These changes were added to make the film accessible to a modern audience. See more »
When Lila first meets Sam in the hardware store, the flap on his left pocket moves between being tucked in the pocket and not. And once Arbogast enters the scene, a pen suddenly appears in the same pocket even tho Sam had not had a pen in his hand or pocket when he came out to meet Lila from the back room where he had been writing the letter to Marion. See more »
Samuel 'Sam' Loomis:
You never did eat your lunch, did you?
I better get back to the office. These extended lunch hours give my boss excess acid.
Samuel 'Sam' Loomis:
Why don't you call your boss and tell him you're taking the rest of the afternoon off? Its Friday, anyway - and hot.
What do I do with my free afternoon? Walk you to the airport?
See more »
The logo for Imagine[inc.] drips in blood instead of water See more »
Hitchcock's original classic benefited tremendously not only from the performance of, but also the 'look' of Anthony Perkins. He projected a kind of clean-cut innocence: a young teen-idol type of persona. He was not an actor who had portrayed baddies before this; nor was he physically suited to the role of what the public might have imagined a psychopath to look like, especially in the 50's when this ultra-chilling aspect of mental illness (split personality psychosis) was relatively unexplored in film. Which is exactly why the casting of him as Norman Bates was a slice of true Hitchcockian genius. Audiences were taken by surprise to put it mildly.
That's why this re-make does not work, even a little bit, in spite of trying to be an exact copy. Whereas Anthony Perkins looked like someone you would never think of as being a serial killer, Vince Vaughn is easily imaginable as one. He lacks the frail look of Perkins and his acting chops are clearly inferior as well, at least in this role (honestly - has there ever been an actor who could convey nervousness as genuinely as Anthony Perkins?). While it was a pointless re-make to begin with, the miscasting of the story's most important character sucks this film down completely.
As a side note, I feel that Hollywood's propensity for re-making great movies because 'young' people refuse to watch anything that's not filmed in color not only stinks to high heaven of corporate greed but is exceptionally disrespectful to the original work. As for viewers who can't watch black and white - it's their loss. Hopefully they'll mature sometime in the future and no longer require shiny colours to hold their attention. When they do they'll discover that sometimes black and white works far better. With the background muted, the story and performances are that much more front and center. And in many cases the mood or atmosphere created through black and white cinematography is just not attainable in colour.
92 of 114 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?