A mentally disturbed man, who roomed with the late Norman Bates at the state lunatic asylum, inherits the legendary Bates Motel after the death of Norman and tries to fix it up to make it a respectable business.
Still haunted by his past, Tommy Jarvis - who, as a child, killed Jason Voorhees - wonders if the serial killer is connected to a series of brutal murders occurring in and around the secluded halfway house where he now lives.
Tommy Jarvis goes to the graveyard to get rid of Jason Voorhees' body once and for all, but inadvertently brings him back to life instead. The newly revived killer once again seeks revenge, and Tommy may be the only one who can defeat him.
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 relationship is beginning to make his "Mother" jealous. He also hires a young man in need of a job to take care of the motel. A snooping reporter is showing interest in Norman's case. What will these new friends do for Norman?Written by
After production wrapped, screenwriter Charles Edward Pogue and Anthony Perkins were asked to pitch an idea for the fourth Psycho film. However, after the film opened to low box office returns, plans for another film were shelved. The third sequel would later on begin development in 1988 and ended up being written by the screenwriter of the original film Joseph Stefano. See more »
When Duke's girlfriend is struggling with the locked ice machine, we see Norman walk past her to unlock it. But we never hear nor see him actually unlock it.
He just lifts the lid. See more »
In the initial Ontario theatrical and video release, the throat slitting was censored both in its initial depiction and the flashback. The cuts were waived for the 2005 DVD edition and the classification was reduced from R to 14A. See more »
In my view, the first three Psycho films can only be compared to the Godfather trilogy; The first one is amazing, the second one is almost as good, and the third one isn't near as good but still enjoyable. Psycho 3 starts off as a full blown rehash of the first film, but after seeing the ending of Psycho 2, that is not a bad thing at all. Psycho 3 could somewhat be looked at as a rehash of the first film, but it still works out well as a sequel. Of course, Norman Bates is back to the way he was in the first film, which sets up Psycho 3 in a very good way. It really gets inside Norman's psychopathic mind, which is why Psycho 3 has a noticeably darker tone than the other two films. This isn't a terrible aspect by any means. I thought that it added a whole new dimension to the film without being nothing but a repeat of the previous sequels. Psycho 3 also adds plenty of teenage slasher aspects and a very large amount of gore, which also added to the movie in a very good way.
Psycho 3 is directed by Anthony Perkins, who also played as Norman Bates in all 4 original Psycho films (not counting the remake directed by Gus Van Zant). Anthony Perkins gives out many Hitchcock style images that are more of homages than anything. The biggest homage that Anthony Perkins delivered the audience was the scene outside the ice box with the dead body inside. The police officer is reaching for some ice, and suddenly we see that the ice is bloody. This resembles a pure Hitchcock trait, which I really liked to see in a sequel to the master's masterpiece.
I also felt that the performances from the entire cast did an excellent job, especially for the period and genre of the film. Psycho 3 has very solid character chemistry and a very solid cast, which I also thought helped the film out in a great deal. Duane Duke is a character that I really loved to hate. Several other aspects about the cast made me love this film for what it is.
The negative aspects of this film include the loss of power on repeated viewings and the brief moments of cheese. I also felt that the ending didn't deliver spot on as the previous two films did. Whatever the case may be, Psycho 3 is still an excellent watch. It may not by any means be as good as the previous two films, but still a good sequel.
21 of 24 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this