Psycho poster & wallpaper

Anne Haney, Anne Heche, Chad Everett

Marion Crane is a Phoenix, Arizona working girl fed up with having to sneak away during lunch breaks to meet her lover, Sam Loomis, who cannot get married because most of his money goes towards alimon...( read more  read more... )y. One Friday, Marion's employer asks her to take $400,000 in cash to a local bank for deposit. Desperate to make a change in her life, she impulsively leaves town with the money, determined to start a new life with Sam in California. As night falls and a torrential rain obscures the road ahead of her, Marion turns off the main highway. Exhausted from the long drive and the stress of her criminal act, she decides to spend the night at the desolate Bates Motel. The motel is run by Norman Bates, a peculiar young man dominated by his invalid mother. After Norman fixes her a light dinner, Marion goes back to her room for a shower....

Flixster Users

39% liked it

27,668 ratings

Critics

33% liked it

69 critics

R, 1 hr. 40 min.

Directed by: Gus Van Sant

Release Date: December 4, 1998

Invite friends to see

DVD Release Date: June 8, 1999

Get It:

Stats: 3,233 reviews

Get movie widget Recommend it Add to Favorites
report incorrect info

Photos

Psycho (1998) Psycho (1998) Psycho (1998) Psycho (1998) Psycho (1998) Psycho (1998) Psycho (1998) Psycho (1998) Psycho Psycho
Upload a Photo |

View All Psycho Photos (10)

Your Rating


clear rating

Flixster Reviews (3,233)

  • PvtCaboose91
    August 20, 2009
    PvtCaboose91
    "A boy's best friend is his mother."


    This reviewer's thoughts on Gus Van Sant's remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (as well as the sentiments of virtually every critic and movie-goer in the world) can be summarised using one word and a bit of punctuation:

    ...( read more)Why?!


    This "why" can be addressed in a financial sense, but in terms of artistry the concept of remaking perfection remains baffling. Director Van Sant has proved that a bunch of Hollywood heavyweights can indeed use $25 million and colour photography to mimic a classic, but he failed to prove his ability to capture the terrifying essence of said classic. It appears there are only two audiences for this Psycho remake: those familiar with Hitchcock's film who are morbidly curious, and newcomers to the story willing to give this edition a chance because it's in colour and stars a more modern cast.


    Since Joseph Stefano's original script was used here (only slightly altered), we all know the story: Marion Crane (Heche) is entrusted by her employer to deposit $400,000 in the bank (for those keeping track, it was only $40,000 in the original). However Marion perceives this phenomenal sum of money as a way to start off fresh, and decides to embezzle it. En route to visit her boyfriend Sam Loomis (Heche), she pulls into the Bates Motel where she meets proprietor Norman Bates (Vaughn). Events of this evening eventually turn violent, with the jealous rage of Norman's twisted mother putting an end to Marion's plans. Once Marion's disappearance becomes worrisome to those closest to her, an investigation commences.


    Remakes come in all shapes, sizes and colours. Successful remakes employ older material and do something new, interesting, and/or intelligent with it (like The Magnificent Seven; a Western appropriation of Akira Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai). 1998's Psycho does nothing of the sort. Director Van Sant obviously knew he couldn't improve upon Hitchcock's masterpiece, so he decided to just copy it instead (virtually shot-for-shot and line-for-line). A few alterations were made to the original script (mostly to the detriment of the film - the most egregious addition is Norman visibly masturbating while peeping on Marion through a hole in the wall), but for the most part it's the same. Interestingly, this film is set in the year 1998, but the fashion and set decoration would make one think it's 1968!


    When Hitchcock himself remade his own films (as he did with The Man Who Knew Too Much), he had the good sense not to replicate the earlier version. He instead took the good ideas and ran with them. Gus Van Sant may have alienated Hitchcock purists if any major alterations to the story were made for this Psycho remake, but he would have made a far more compelling film at least. Here's the major problem with Van Sant's film: even if you wanted to praise something about it - the cinematography, the pacing, the music, the storyline, the dialogue, or even Saul Bass' design for the opening credits - you'd be better off praising the original. The sense of déjà vu while viewing this carbon copy is powerful, as is the sense that something isn't quite right.


    As "accurate" as this Psycho is, it's not particularly terrifying or thrilling. It's a lifeless, slapdash project with all tension leeched away. It's also in colour. Hitchcock opted for black and white photography all those decades ago because the starkness of monochrome enhanced the movie's shock value. Colour, on the other hand, makes Psycho seem ordinary. In addition, Van Sant does a woeful job of refilming the infamous shower scene. He copies a lot of the camera angles and much of the editing from the original sequence, but speeds up the film and (in MTV fashion) inserts a few pointless flashes of a stormy sky as well as an extreme close-up of Heche's iris opening. The shrieking violins of Bernard Herrmann's score are inexplicably altered too. In addition, more blood flows from visible stab wounds, but it doesn't make the sequence any scarier or more shocking - if anything, it shows how masterful Hitchcock was for being able to do more with less. Disappointingly and astonishingly, the blood here looks faker than the chocolate syrup used in Hitchcock's original.


    The performances are another issue. Only Julianne Moore and William H. Macy (as characters once portrayed by Vera Miles and Martin Balsam) hold their own and bring at least a slight degree of intensity to their roles. Anne Heche as Marion Crane pales in comparison to Janet Leigh - she's very contrived. Viggo Mortensen is a weak Sam Loomis, and frequently sounds as if he's just reciting lines from nearby cue cards. Most lamentably, Vince Vaughn is unable to present a truly compelling interpretation of Norman Bates (despite his attempts to imitate a number of Anthony Perkins' mannerisms). The main problem with the cast is that they're just playing surface impersonations of their characters instead of embodying them.


    Ironically, Van Sant stated in a Newsweek article that he hates remake. In fact (irony of all ironies), he calls his Psycho an "anti-remake film". "Why do people take films that are really well done and change the dialogue and change the shots and call it the same movie?" he asked. In theory, he's correct, but it's doubtful that the answer is to mimic a "really well done" film and call it an "anti-remake film".


    It's possible to argue that since this remake is more or less the same film as Hitchcock's original, there isn't anything truly wrong with it. But this argument is utter nonsense because there's plenty wrong with it - Van Sant's direction is lifeless, the performances are tragically unremarkable, and as a standalone feature it's poorly made and lacks tension. Nothing flows naturally; it all feels very awkward, with lines and actions included perfunctorily rather than organically. 1998's Psycho does, however, effectively prove that it wasn't the technical aspects of Hitchcock's masterpieces that made them so great - Hitchcock relied on originality, plot and unexpected twists. Van Sant's remake is humdrum because it has none of these.


    The makers of this film obviously wanted to pay tribute to Hitchcock's work, but the film is more of a self-indulgent exercise (it was undoubtedly more stimulating for Van Sant and crew to make the film than it is for an audience to watch it). Psycho simply gives a new generation of movie-goers (who are already ignorant of classic movies) another reason not to see Hitchcock's original. As far as the future is concerned, this Psycho will become little more than a footnote in cinematic history.


    The end credits are tagged with the words "In Memory of Alfred Hitchcock" which is an official insult.
  • flixsterman
    May 16, 2009
    flixsterman
    This is no homage to Hitchcock, this is theatrical blasphemy.
  • ThePublicEnemy
    August 29, 2008
    ThePublicEnemy
    A Terrible remake. It makes Alfred Hitchocks old version look bad.
  • sononothing
    July 17, 2008
    sononothing
    I have to be honest, I couldn't sit through more than five minutes of this horrible piece of garbage. What kind of sick bastard would want to remake Psycho of all things? Hey, look it's got the same producer as The Cat in the Hat! That explains it all.
    If anyone has seen the ori...( read more)ginal film (which is a masterpiece) seeing actors replay the same script, yet put more emphasis on other words than their predecessors did in their lines makes ones bowels turn to water after five minutes of watching this grandiose drivel. I keep asking myself "Why?" and can't answer it. Imagine the Mona Lisa and having a five year old trace it out with Crayolas. That's what this film is.

    Fan films are remade shot for shot. Not Hollywood films. This film was a complete waste of time to make and is a complete waste of time to watch.
  • rebvodka042099
    July 6, 2008
    rebvodka042099
    Over-rated (Sorry, Gus, but it is!)
  • speeddubya
    November 8, 2009
    speeddubya
    a movie so bad that u will love it
  • lovablemisanthrope
    October 31, 2009
    lovablemisanthrope
    Stick with the original, trust me.
  • ringoestrella258
    October 28, 2009
    ringoestrella258
    A pointless remake of a classic movie. Check out Hitchcock´s version instead.
  • bigdaddydaryl
    October 26, 2009
    bigdaddydaryl
    This was like watching the older one but in colour.I cant believe how much it was like the first one.
    Still a great story no matter how you look at it.This must be for the new-gen young'ins
    cause I dont understand why they remade this?
  • rongunter69
    October 21, 2009
    rongunter69
    The worst remake ever.

View All Psycho Reviews

Critic Reviews

January 1, 2000
Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

The movie is an invaluable experiment in the theory of cinema, because it demonstrates that a shot-by-shot remake is pointless; genius apparently resides between or beneath the shots, or in chemistry ... full review

View more Psycho reviews at RottenTomatoes.com

Comments

  • MorpheusOne
    December 18, 2008
    MorpheusOne
    I've seen the original and I've seen this one and this one is better!

    The acting in this is DEFINITELY a thousand times better than what is in the original!!

    Oh well...!
  • ouisch27
    December 15, 2006
    ouisch27
    What I'd really like to see ( since this is a shot-by-shot remake ) is an editing job that combines the original with this version. Wouldn't it be great to see Anthony Perkins awkward flirtation opposite Anne Heche ? To see Vince Vaughn ... abuse himself .... to the sight of Janet Leigh in the shower ? Any of the smaller scenes combined in such a way that character actors of the 1960's share the screen with 90's stars ?
    C'mon -- one of you YouTube geniuses -- what're you waiting for ?
  • lucyglitter
    September 27, 2006
    lucyglitter
    I didnt like it.

    It was really...It just didnt need to be remade.

    it was basically the same!
    The dialogue, the music, the acting, the directing

    and Vince Vaughn was okay.
    It wasnt...too...good
  • lisybabe
    June 12, 2006
    lisybabe
    I just don't get why so many people claim to hate this film, yet claim to adore the original IT IS A SHOT FOR SHOT REMAKE!

    It's not like your average remake where plot points and other crucial details get changed around.

    There are some very subtle differences. A couple of extra shots are added (literally, like, 2!) and the actors do deliver their lines in a slightly different way. Vince Vaughn's portrayal of Norman Bates is closer to the character of Bates in Robert Bloch's original novel than Anthony Perkins depiction was.

    And Julianne Moore was supposed to be acting "lesbian." Which is just a hilarious thing to have read.
Post A Comment | View All Comments

Critic ratings and reviews powered by RottenTomatoes.com

Fresh (60% or more critics rated the movie positively)

Rotten (59% or fewer critics rated the movie positively)

All Rotten Tomatoes content is used under license from Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes, Certified Fresh, and the Tomatometer are the trademarks of Incfusion Corporation, d/b/a Rotten Tomatoes, a subsidiary of IGN Entertainment, Inc.

Official Trailer

View Larger Psycho Trailer

Cast

More Like This

Click a thumb to vote on that suggestion, or add your own suggestions.

  • Psycho
    Psycho (75%)
  • Psycho III
    Psycho III (75%)
  • Motel Hell
    Motel Hell (75%)
  • Secret Window
    Secret Window (33%)

More Movies like Psycho

Theater Showtimes & TV Listings

Psycho Trivia

  • On American Psycho, what weapon did Patrick drop down the stairwell, that killed the girl at the bottom?  Answer »
  • What kind of fruit was recorded being stabbed to create the chilling sound effect for the shower scene of Hitchcock's masterpiece, psycho...?  Answer »
  • In what film did this music first feature in?  Answer »
  • First American film ever to show a toilet flushing on screen.  Answer »
More Psycho Trivia

Movie Quizzes

Create a Quiz |

All Quizzes

Video Clips

Upload a Video |

All Psycho Videos

Meet Other Fans

Add Psycho to favorites

Recent News

Submit a Story |

View Psycho News

Recent Lists

Make a List |

View All Lists

Most Popular Skin

No skins yet. Interested in creating one?