Norman Bates is still running his little motel, and he has kept the dressed skeleton he calls mother. One of his guests is a young girl who has left the convent where she lived. To get some... See full summary »
Norman Bates returns for this "prequel", once more having mommy trouble. This time around he is invited to share memories of mom with a radio talk show host, but the PYSCHO fears that he ... See full summary »
23-year-old Meera meets a guy in a bus on her way to work. A casual fun chat with him soon triggers off a series of unpleasant events and Meera realizes that she has become an obsession for... See full summary »
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 Gus Van Sant cameos in the same scene 'Alfred Hitchcock' did in the original, he's talking to a man in a cowboy hat. Apparently it's supposed to be Hitchcock scolding Van Sant! See more »
The $4,036.00 that Norma Crane has written on a slip of paper represents an incorrect amount. At the time the movie was shot the CA state minimum sales tax was 6%. Based on the $4,000 paid to the dealer for new car, the tax would have been at least $240.00 (total amount= $4240.00, not $4036.00). 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 »
If you look closely at the swamp after the end credits, the water turns red, obviously to blood. 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.
97 of 119 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?