After twenty-two years of psychiatric care, Norman Bates attempts to return to a life of solitude, but the specters of his crimes - and his mother - continue to haunt him.
Norman Bates falls in love with a fallen nun who stays at the Bates Motel alongside a drifter and a curious reporter. Meanwhile, "mother" is still watching.
A Phoenix secretary embezzles forty thousand dollars from her employer's client, goes on the run, and checks into a remote motel run by a young man under the domination of his mother.
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 <rainman88@earthlink.net>
In Psycho (1960), Sir Alfred Hitchcock wanted his opening shot to be a long, complete pan and zoom over the city into Marion's hotel room. Sadly, the technology was not yet perfected, and he achieved his effect through a series of pans and dissolves. The remake does a complete travelling shot, as Hitchcock had intended. See more »
Goofs
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 »
Quotes
[first lines]
Samuel 'Sam' Loomis:
You never did eat your lunch, did you?
Marion Crane:
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.
Marion Crane:
What do I do with my free afternoon? Walk you to the airport?
See more »
Crazy Credits
The ending credits show the police looking around the swamp. 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.
160 of 191 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this
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.