Psycho

The most disposable movie in the history of cinema?This one is a strong contender!Why waste so much money for such a pointless useless work? The only difference between the HItchcock classic and this poor imitation is color,wide screen and Leila's Walkman!!A movie which's supposed to generate thrills and fear leaves me completely indifferent.

Now you' re going to tell me it will urge the young generations to see the original?balderdash!This "psycho 1998" is a giant spoiler.

They could have done something different,for instance ,by casting an actor closer to Bloch 's Bates ,an obese man.They content themselves with an obnoxious rehash!A pox on it!and long live Alfred Hitchcock!

This known shocker concerns about Marion Crane(Anna Heche in similar role Janet Leigh),she works at a Phoenix office when his employer(Chad Everett) trust her a money .Seeing the opportunity to take the cash and beginning a new life along with her fiancé(Viggo Mortensen in role of John Gavin).Larcenous Marion Crane leaves Phoenix(Arizona) and heads with her car toward California where lives her lover.Later,when is caught in a storm, leaves the highway and pull into to the Bates hotel.The motel with twelve rooms(and 12 showers) is managed by a strange and paranoid young(Vince Vaughn-Anthony Perkins)who seems to be controlled by his overbearing mummy , and ,she's living in a creaky old mansion nearly to hotel,then rare things start to happen.After a detective called Arbogast(William H. Macy with similar character at Martin Balsam), her sister(Julianna Moore-Vera Miles)along with Sam(Viggo Mortensen)are looking for to Marion, asking help to sheriff(Philip Baker Hall-John McIntire).

The story is a rip off from original classic picture,frame-for-frame, with a few news scenes though filmed in glimmer color and lensed beautifully by cameraman Christopher Doyle.Thus,it contains the same screenplay by Joseph Stefano and Robert Bloch infused with deliciously macabre wit,plenty of grisly murders,stabbing shots,horror,suspense and lots of blood.The highlights film are,of course,the famous murder of Marion Crane-Anne Heche completely copied scene-for-scene although with a few more nudism and the creepy final images where is turned out the killing conclusion.Again the suspenseful music score,adding impressive excitement,nowadays deemed a classic soundtrack by Bernard Hermann is arranged by Danny Elffman.The motion picture is regularly directed by Gus Van Sant(Drugstore cowboy,Elephant,among others),nowadays considered a cult-director.The original Hitchcock film is highly superior to this one and the numerous movies which tried duplicate it, like as : Psycho II(1983) by Richard Franklin,Psycho III(1986)by Anthony Perkins,and for cable TV :PsychoIV(1990)by Mick Garris

Well, I have to agree with the critics on this one, who all said "leave it alone." Why they had to make this re-make of the 1960 "Psycho," I don't know. My guess is they wanted to reach a new audience and thought color and modern-day actors were the answer, since those were the main changes. The dialog was the same and the story the same.

On one hand, I applaud them for not making this over with a lot of profanity and nudity and making it a sleazy film. Yet, if they were going to keep everything the same, why bother when you weren't going to improve on Tony Perkins, Janet Leigh and the original cast?

Did they honestly think Vince Vaughn was going to be as good or better than Perkins? Are you kidding? Ann Heche, with her short mannish-haircut, is going to be better than Leigh? I don't think so!

Yes, the colors were pretty in here but it's the black-and-white photography that helped make the 1960 version so creepy to begin with. It's perfect for the story, not a bunch of greens and pinks! Once again, I guess the filmmakers were banking on an audience that never saw the original.

This was just a stupid project that never should have gotten off the ground.

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.

Watchable in a film school project kind of way, but its obsession with trying to do everything exactly like Hitchcock's version leaves it cold and emotionless. Who'd have ever thought seeing Marion Crane slashed to death in a shower would inspire nothing more than a simple shrug? As a stand alone movie, it doesn't work very well.