Norman Bates is back again running his "quiet" little motel a month after the events in Psycho II. Norman meets three new people, one being a beautiful young nun with whom his budding ... 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>
The helicopter carrying the camera is visible on the mirrored windows of the first building in the opening shot. 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 end credits show the police looking around the swamp. See more »
This is easily the worst remake in film history. I have never understood the idea of a remake at all. If a film, like Psycho, is so good to start with why on earth do you want to try and improve on it? If you insist on tampering with perfection, why then do you have to try to recreate it in it's whole? There is nothing original here. Gus Van Sant put nothing of himself into this film. They say imitation is the highest form of flattery, but this is ridiculous. There are a lot of sides to a character as complex as Norman Bates, and I suspect that Vaughn may have wanted to explore them. Instead Van Sant forced him into sticking to a cheap imitation of Anthony Perkins. Perkins turned in a performance that lead to one of the most memorable characters in film history and it would have been impossible for any actor, no matter how good to recreate that. The rest of the characters are stuck just as tight to similarly wooden imitations of the originals. It is almost painful to watch very talented actors (namely William H Macy) have that talent stifled. In the end, Gus Van Sant set out to pay homage to a great film. Instead he cheapened it, and created a movie that is not worthy of late night cable.
113 of 166 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?