Psycho





Not quite as good as the original, but I enjoyed it.

Or, maybe, it's just because of Vince Vaughn, who didn't play a convincing Norman Bates, but still awesome. B-

After Dodgeball, Old School, Starsky & Hutch and The Wedding Crashers it's hard to think of him in such a role, isn't it.

Anyway, my grade is a C.

I actually did imagine him in a role like this before seeing the movie, but he just wasn't a good Norman Bates, no matter how you think it.

*SPOILERS*

The part where he jacks off and when you get to see him wearing the wig were gut-busting hilarious.

With the new Omen movie coming out:

I hated hated hated hated hated the Psycho remake. Seriously, the most pointless feature I may have ever experienced. It's as if turning it into color and adding new actors drained away every ounce of considerable tension the original had.

F

Hasn't even Gus Van Sant himself come out and acknowledged this film as a complete artistic failure?

It's absolutely horrendous.

D

Its even worse than the original, Which i think its one of the most overrated movies of all time

D-

D-/F

Please die Gus Van Sant. If it was a stand-alone film, maybe I wouldn't rank it this low, but I can't help my tastes. What he did here was one of the most despicable deeds in film history, without a doubt.

God.

So I just finished watching this back-to-back with the original.

I don't really buy that it's a complete and utter failure. Hitchcock's original is too well-known and too studied for this to be a mere attempt at recreating its effect and success. Plus Van Sant is too much of an artiste, Good Will Hunting notwithstanding. While I agree that this film doesn't come close to the original's mastery and art, I think it's too interesting to just write off as a disaster or even a failed experiment. What Van Sant is doing here is not remaking Psycho; he's recreating it for another age, revealing how tied the original is to its time while also unveiling the source of its true artistry. In a way, it's the purest remake ever, as it can only be viewed in light of the original.

The thing that struck me the most were the ugly, garish colours. Everything from the motel room to Viggo's grotesque shirts are presented with sickly, lurid shades of orange and green and pink. Even the blood in the shower sequence seems off; more glossy and shiny than deep and thick. In a way, Van Sant seems to be heightening and reveaing the perverseness hidden in the original. This transfers forth into the characters/performances as well; Vaughn's Norman becomes a sick pervert, Heche's Marion is a flirtatious sex kitten, Mortenson's Sam a two-bit womanizer, Moore's Lila a impetuous, immature child, Macy's Arbogast a sleazy investigator. Van Sant removes the sheen of innuendo and implication the original thrived on and exposes the story for what it is: a second-rate murder plot with a twist.

In a way, there's a sense in which Van Sant is purposefully removing Psycho from its shell in order to express the utter ridiculousness of the idea of remakes. The point of Psycho is not found in its narrative, its characters, its performances, or even its assemblage of shots; it's something else, something hidden in between the scenes. The fact that this film feels so wrong when the original feels so right is a testament to this; if Van Sant had made the exact same film without Hitchcock's version being present, would it have been trashed so soundly? I think not.

In that sense, this is definitely more of a concept experiment than an actual film. But in this way, it's perhaps even more interesting. It may not work as a strict remake of Psycho, but as a commentary on its brilliance? It's terrific.

It's shitty on purpose, though, to show the inherent foolishness of remaking a film like Psycho.

Van Sant didn't spend his own money, though. He basically took the studio's money and made his own little art experiment with it. If the studio had any hand in making the film, I'd say sure, it was an attempt at a commercial success and it failed. But it's a high-concept piece by an arthouse auteur, and he basically 'tricked' the studio into paying for it.

Anyways, this is all moot. The context the film was made in - the money, the studio, whatever - is irrelevant to what the film actually is. I'm just saying what I saw in the film.

Intention (in art) is a fallacy, though. It is not important what Van Sant "intended" to do, or what this remake is "intended" to be - just what the film is. As I said, I'm just saying what I saw in the film.

And how can my avatar remind you of a film you slept through? How would you even know what the film looks like?

That's not my point at all, and it's a gross generalization of my argument.

This film works because it consciously references the original, through its mimicking of the shots, use of sickly colours, subversive performances, etc. It shows what was so great about the original by working against it, thus proving both the original's worth as well as its own.

This cannot be haphazardly applied to every 'shitty' remake, though. Does Burton's Planet of the Apes do this? Does Rob Zombie's Halloween? Does the 2006 Omen (even though it's also, basically, shot-for-shot)? No. They simply take the surface features of the original without tackling what's underneath.

Van Sant's "intention" does not come into play, because, as I said, artist intention is a fallacy. This does not mean certain things cannot be read into the film. It just means that what Van Sant was intending to do doesn't matter. All that matters is what the film actually does.

If you want to say that this Psycho fails because it doesn't successfully work against the original, as I say, fine. But to say it's shitty simply because it has bad performances or ugly settings or it's not as 'good' as the original is, well, kinda ignorant.

Eh... I'm not gonna continue with this argument because I've already made my point clear. Read my review again if you don't understand what I'm saying.

It's not great for the same reasons as the original or most films. It's not 'entertaining' on a base level. It's only entertaining (to me) because of how it takes the original and subverts it, turning it into more of a concept piece than an actual film. It's an intriguing work. It's not like conventional film, and it can't be judged as one.

Also, don't make blanket generalizations like "the viewer can't connect with it on any level". Clearly, I'm a viewer, and I can connect with it. Just say that you can't connect with it.

The first (and only?) piece of conceptual art ever bankrolled by a giant corporation. I think one of the best things I've ever heard it described as is a "surrealist object". It's not even really fair or accurate to call it a movie.

I buy GVS experimenting to see if a black and white classic remade shot for shot in color can work, I don't buy him making it shitty on purpose to show the superiority of the first. Maybe if Van Sant was as art heavy as he's been this decade from start to finish in his career, but this film was made right in the middle of his Good Will Hunting/Finding Forrestor mainstream studio stint...

Hilarious thread.

This is better than the original.

I remember watching this way back a late showing when it opened. There's the one scene they stuck in the film. Pointless by the way, where you have Norman looking through the peep hole and jacking off...wish sound effects. Some guy gave the "I'mmmmm coming" extra audience effect.

I'll need to watch this again someday to remember how much I did not like it.