Sorry, this video is no longer available.
Psycho
free online video at Flixster
Psycho
(R, N/A, Released 1998)
| Provider: |
Hulu |
| Genres: |
Horror, Mystery & Suspense |
| Released: |
Dec 4, 1998 |
| DVD Released: |
Jun 8, 1999 |
| Starring: |
Anne Heche,
Julianne Moore,
Viggo Mortensen,
Vince Vaughn,
William H. Macy
|
| Directed by: |
Gus Van Sant |
| Synopsis: |
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 alimony. 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.... |
| |
Full movie details
|
My Friends' Reviews
Log in to see your friends' reviews.
Other Top Reviews
-
October 27, 2008
I Fell Asleep Saturday watching Psycho (The 1960 Version) Not Because It was Boring But Because I was Tired When I Woke Up The Next Day I Was Hoping That They Would Show It Again And For My Despair They Were Showing (The 1998 Version) Which Was Basically The Same Thing But In Color Though, The Sounds Were The Same Thing, Vince Vaughn's Acting Was Solid. But I Am Still Wondering Why He Gave Up Being The Scary Bad Guy And Ended Up Being The Funny Guy Whose Movies Are Only About Him And No One Else.
-
October 19, 2008
Gus Van Sant, What the hell you were thinking? why? why? WHY?... Filming shot by shot a classic (And when i say a classic, i really want to say A CLASSIC, or THE CLASSIC), with an awful, awful cast, William H. Macy, Anne Heche, Julianne Moore (I love her, but not here) and Vince Vaughn, he was creepy, but not in the way that the movie needs, the only good cast was Viggo Mortensen. The movie is effective because is a exact copy of Hitchcock's work, and Psycho (1960) is amazing, but Psycho (1998) is inexcusable.-
-
October 18, 2008
The most unthinkably pointless remake ever transferred to film, and also the most uncreative and unoriginal. Judged solely on its ability to reproduce to original, I would give it an easy five star rating, but the fact is and remains: no one wants to see a shot-for-shot, word-for-word movie like this and, more importantly, it just simply should not have been made.
-
October 16, 2008
This movie is not bad but I prefer the previous one of Hitchcock. The original is super good with A.Perkins.
-
October 14, 2008
Despite this not being all bad, it never answers the question asked in the beginning regarding why a classic such as 1960's Psycho had to be remade. This virtually copies it scene for scene, with the same characters and minor alterrations to the story, set on December 11 1998. Heche is tolerable as Crane but unfortunately she doesn't have the steel of Leigh and Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates didn't work. Support players fare better, Macy as P.I. Arbogast and Moore who is totally believable as Crane's sister. The Motel doesn't make enough of an impact, the taxidermy aspect of Bates is a well presented dimension to the character, the infamous "Mother" is reasonably handled and Hermann's score is memorable but occasionally improperly used. The film is really quite unnecessary and proves that classics such as Psycho are best left alone. Robert Forster appears as the pyschologist and delivers his assessment of the deranged Bates at the end, one of the better scenes is Moore's discovery of the decrepit "Mother" in the fruit cellar.
-
September 21, 2008
Yes, it was a bad idea. Yes, it wasn't as good as the remake. Yes, all those involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves... but No, it's not awful. An interesting experiment to be sure, there are elements that are actually quite good. Vaughn, while no Perkins, is still intensely creepy and this film proves he actually CAN act. The score also has never sounded better. And of course, if you've never seen the original this film would have been an exciting thriller...
But then again one has to ask themselves, Why!? Just rent the original and be done with it.
-
September 21, 2008
Nothing can't beat the old version of Psycho. There are so manu mistakes in this version! For exampel Norman did not masturbate during he watched the girl in the room.
-
September 13, 2008
Oh dear,this is almost a shot-for-shot remake.
What i don't get is why,if the only reason to remake a movie is to make it in colour,then i really don't understand.
Sorry,but this was a waist if my time.
I love the original,why would i want to see a inferior version of the same movie.
-
September 8, 2008
How dare they copy cat the original! They could at least made into a new interpretation or something. Huge disappointment.
-
August 31, 2008
My biggest question is "Why did they re-make a classic Hitchcock movie?" It's a "no-win" situation.
*
-
August 19, 2008
I didn't like this version. I rented it and as soon as i saw that it was almost exactly what was made in 1960 by Hitch, i returned it back to the video store.
-
July 26, 2008
Frame for frame and word for word, this "remake" is EXACTLY THE SAME as Alfred Hitchcock's original! I mean, what was the point of making this film?! The reasoning eludes me.
-
July 16, 2008
Well, it was certainly interesting - kudos to vince vaughn for his awesome performance (he was really REALLY good) and his skinniness!
-
July 11, 2008
Apart from maybe Julianne Moore, the casting of this movie was really bad. None of the actors lived up to the performances given in the original. I liked that they kept the same score - the music was one of the reasons I loved the original so much. But ultimately, while it's entertaining to watch a modern adaptation of something, I just find the whole idea of a shot-for-shot remake kind of pointless.
-
July 7, 2008
I give the movie credit for recreating the movie so closely, shot-for-shot, my only question is, "Why?"
-
June 26, 2008
Van Sant gets points for being daring enough to not only direct a remake of one of the greatest and most influential films of all time, but to do it shot-for-shot and in color. It's decent overall, and I like the cast, but some of the performances (direction too)just can't cut it enough to get a higher rating.
-
June 14, 2008
OK sure it's a shot by shot ripoff of the original but it still seems to have lost a lot. Just watch the original.
-
Why make it in the first place? A remake should be of a movie that passed its time. Psycho is timeless
-
June 9, 2008
Alfred Hitchcock must be rolling over in his grave. I was waiting for Vince Vaughn to jump up and say "Vegas baby, Vegas!"
-
A shot for shot color remake of Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 movie Psycho.
I have this as an extras disc for the Alfred Hitchcock version.
-
May 23, 2008
Why take a perfectly good movie and add Anne Heche {who sucks} and make it in color? Hmmm...put more butts in the seats? No. Just no. and the ending? The fucking ending?!??!?!! Jesus God...
-
May 18, 2008
Yea It's a remake, but it is pretty interesting to view when it captures the same frames as in the original.
-
March 26, 2008
An unecesary film.
What's the point of making a remake of Psycho if the only thing that changes are the actors, the color, the time and the sums of money. Seriously. The dialouge is almost the same, except for a few things here and there, and even the camera shots are exact.
It all just seemed mediocre instead of a remake of a masterpiece.
There have probably been worst movies made but this one I just feel like it was a waste of money, I mean there already was a great movie with the exact same story. It felt like I had already seen all that and I had...two days ago when I saw the original.
Not good enough to bother with.
-
March 13, 2008
You know, i thought it would be sacrilige (sp?) to remake this film, even if they DID do it frame by frame. However, again, Vaughn's performance was legendary.
-
February 27, 2008
I thought Vince Vaughn did great in this movie. I would need to see the original of course to compare.
-
February 23, 2008
Why do a remake if every single scene was the exact same as Hitchcock's original which is a million times better.!
-
February 19, 2008
At first I wasn't sure If Vaughn could do as good as Perkins did in the orginal. I was wrong. A nice update to from the original version.
-
February 3, 2008
OMG!!! Scary movie!!! I now have to shampoo with my eyes open afraid someone will stab me while i'm shampooing!!!
-
January 18, 2008
Classic Hitchcock movie. And most people don''t know that the character Norman Bates was inspired by a real man, Ed Gein.
-
January 10, 2008
From what I've heard this movie doesn't do hitchcock credit. I usually like to watch movies first to make my own opinions but I hold the origanal in such high regard I would never want to detract from it.
-
January 4, 2008
Not sure what I think of this film. It's been done before, and done better. Nothing new from the original except colour and a few minor updates to the scenery. Watch the original if you have the choice.
-
January 1, 2008
THE most unoriginal, pointless, stupid excuse for a movie there ever was. It's the exact same as Hitchcock's masterpieces. I mean exactly. Shot by shot. So I don't even understand why it was made. The only reason I don't give it a half star is because some of the acting was good. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates. HAHA!
-
December 28, 2007
Cross-dressing serial slasher Norman Bates seems perfectly rational compared with the loon who thought it'd be neat to remake...shot for shot...this Hitchcock classic.
-
December 24, 2007
Not as good as the original. But hey, who can beat the master of suspense at his own game. No one - that's who!
-
December 16, 2007
In my opinion...if you are going to remake a classic movie, you need to bring your own style to the table. However, this movie is pretty much the same shot-for-shot (from what I remember). Vince Vaughn plays a really good Norman Bates. It's still worth watching, but to me, it was just the original in color with a different (and solid) cast.
-
December 16, 2007
Vince Vaughn? Julianne Moore? In one movie? It already sounds like it's going to irritate to the point of nausea.
Anne Heche will not help. Hitchcock would turn in his tomb.
-
November 24, 2007
As basically everyone has stated before, this is a completely pointless remake of a film that really never called for one. Even if Van Sant had the technical ability to make this a worthy movie (which he didn't, and probably still doesn't), there are still a ton of things working against him. One has to wonder why he even picked up the project at all.
The most poisonous problem is, obviously, the legacy of the original directly working against it. There's an odd thing I truly don't understand about remakes - when shit like Transformers gets picked up, everyone gets all excited and nostalgic about it. TMNT too but God help you if you liked that movie. Horror remakes, however, are almost universally reviled. I won't postulate on this because I honestly don't know why this is so, but it's interesting to view Van Sant's attempt at avoiding it. Quite simply, he films a shot-for-shot remake with some incredibly slight differences. As if terrified of disappointing the film's following, he packs a bunch of big names into what are effectively 10-minute roles and has them include extra flair so as not to be forgettable. Psycho reeks of trepidation, which dooms any movie from the start. And when it does make changes, they're usually for the worse. The infamous shower stabbing, for instance, is made far more violent, splashing the scene with extra blood and crunchy sound effects. An inevitable treatment for the late 90s. Also bizarre is watching Norman Bates...well, masturbate while watching hapless Marion through his little peep-hole. Another slightly amusing change is the removal of any mentions of transvestitism from the ending monologue. Psychology has really changed in 40 years, huh?
But even though it does preserve the screenplay and cinematography of the original, Van Sant fails on several levels. The performances he commands were doomed to be lost from the beginning. The actors delivering these lines find varying degrees of success, but all of them are uniformly overshadowed by the roles of the past. The worst is Anne Heche. She is predominantly bad, bringing this bizarre half-pixie, half-bitch quality to a Marion Crane that simply didn't call for it. Her miscasting is fatal; she is too goofy and airy for this role. She does have some okay scenes (she is interesting, if not obvious, during the dinner scene) but ultimately I actually found myself kind of glad that she died. Julianne Moore, as her sister, is the most modernized of the characters, attempting to bring a personality to the unmemorable Lila Crane. It comes off as a bit overexaggerated. William H. Macy is decent, as is a surprising Vince Vaughn. Sure, he'll never live up to Anthony Perkins, but he plays an interesting Bates. I also feel like a bad person for finding him incredibly hot. Whaaat?
Psycho's step into color is the most obvious change here, but it doesn't really enhance or augment the movie in any way. I could wax philosophical on how black and white movies are more meaningful because they make the images more vivid, but that would be pointless - a black and white movie in this day and age is generally financial suicide. Still, this movie was DOA no matter what Van Sant did to help it out. It's an interesting study on performances at the very least, but overall not worth the time.
-
November 24, 2007
this film...compared to the original is like wanting starbucks and getting that fucking shite coffee from Bill Miller's
-
November 12, 2007
This is what the Gus Van Sant was thinking at the time he chose to remake Psycho: Man I'm so f*cking great, I can do what ever f*cking film I want and it'll be a f*cking masterpiece. I know I'll remake Psycho one the greatest films of all time and make it even better. I'll use coloured film. I have the dude from Swingers in. He's more creepy then that Perkins pansy and just to make things better I'll make shot for shot therefore this generation will never need to see the sh*tty film, it's like old. Now something that will really set this film apart from the film... I know I'll add a scene with Norman Bates masturbation. God I'm the greatest.
-
November 7, 2007
If you like Van Sant's earlier 90s efforts, this should please. I respect the concept of remaking Psycho shot by shot with this color palatte and an...interesting cast. The opening titles and the opening shot are fucking money.
-
November 1, 2007
that rating may seem high, but if you ape a classic this exactly, some of it is going to rub off on your movie.
-
October 24, 2007
I don't get why this was made, I mean I don't hate it but it's basically the same movie from 1960 in color with different actors. What was the use? -_-;
-
October 14, 2007
I want to see this if only to prove once and for all that Hitchcock is a god and no one can do it better than him.
-
October 6, 2007
Pointless, pointless, pointless. Vince Vaughn tries but he is no Anthony Perkins. If you are going to remake a movie then make it your own. If all you are going to do is a shot for shot job then we can just go rent the original.
-
September 28, 2007
This movie follows pretty closely the original, with almost the same dialogue. However, it loses me a little in that it just isn't so great. It's okay for a late-night rented movie, but not to own or watch many times. Vince Vaughn is creepy, though.
-
September 20, 2007
THIS MOVIE WAS GOOD BUT NOT AS GOOD AS THE FIRST ONE. IT STILL MADE ME AFRAID TO TAKE A SHOWER AFTER SEEING IT !
-
September 20, 2007
gads...chaulk this into the "bad idea" group.
Whoever thought it was a good odea to do a shot for shot remake of a classic like Psycho should have been beaat with piece of mining eqipment.
-
September 8, 2007
Why? I will never fucking know, and I like most of the people involved in this, such a shame, but shall we let it go as a blip on the radar?
-
September 7, 2007
Gus Van Sant had a point to make, namely why do remakes when you might as well watch the original. Seeing his shot-for-shot version of the Hitchcock classic is a bit like re-imagining the original in your own head with contemporary actors. Ever watched a film and thought "what if xxxx had played that role"? Well, here's the answer to that question in living colour. To be honest, it is rather difficult to watch without feeling like a philistine, but the way in which the whole affair sticks to Alfred's 1960 gameplan is effective in manipulating audience guilt. I don't honestly know why Van Sant agreed to do it, but the film is perhaps more relevant now in this era of numerous weak remakes (Get Carter featuring Stallone etc) than it was a decade back. And, in response to the younger generation who want all their films in 'wonderful' technicolour and detest black and white, the shower scene in colour should shut them up when compared to the genuinely chilling B&W original. Three stars for the point that the director was trying to make, no stars for the film itself.
-
September 5, 2007
Nothing like the original and to give it more than two stars, you have to judge it as a movie of it's own. But since it calls itself Psycho, 2 stars it is.
-
September 2, 2007
Haven't seen the original so can't say about the adaptation part but didn't really impress me otherwise.
-
September 1, 2007
Why remake the exact same movie???? Waste of time to see this one. Watch Hitchcock's version it is better.
-
August 14, 2007
Classic of horror films...Hitchock really puts your imagination to work in this movie, they don´t call him the master of suspense for nothing...
Quick movie data: Did u know this was the first movie ever where u actually get to see a toilet on screen, it had never been done before ;-)
-
August 11, 2007
Let me start off by saying this: Van Sant's remake of 'Psycho' is not a terrible movie. That is quite impossible as it is so closely related to the original. However, because it is nearly shot by shot of the original, you can't help comparing the two in every single aspect of presentation. And when you do that, this version suffers horrifically. The original Psycho is, it's a fact, it's there, we've seen it. Why do a remake unless you're going to make it your own. There's no point in doing a shot by shot. But, don't think that this movie is only unworthy when compared to the original, if I were truely comparing the two, my score for this film would be 1 star. On its own, however, I'd give it 2 1/2. Now let's start the critique: The movie is in color, which is a bad choice. I'm not merely saying this because the original is in black and white, even though when compared, there's no question that black and white is just better. The Motel looks like any other Motel, especially with the bright red neon lights. And the house, a sort of pukish redish orange, is equally comical. There's no sense of ominousity that there would have been if they'd done it in black and white. Now the cinematography is the same in the original, so I must compare the two. The cinematography in the original was designed for a black and white movie, all the camera shots and lighting were specifically created to puncuate the photography, therefore, using the same cinematography doesn't quite work for this version because it's in color. The lighting isn't ominous, the camera angles aren't eccentuating what the film has to offer. Now, the music is the same way, pulled directly from the original film. But, the original film was in black and white, and Bernard Hermann chose to use all strings because of that. The music doesn't quite work when the film is brought to color. They should have reorchestrated the music to include brass and percussion. Now, let's focus on the actors for a minute: Anne Heche does a fine job as Marion. At times she overdoes it, but on the whole, it's a fine performance. And the only one. Vince Vaughn attempts the impossible at trying to play Norman Bates, granted it's not entirely his fault he can't get it right, but alot of times it is. Even if you're acting a part that is immortal, you can still make it believable. Vaughn puts on his acting face and I never quite believed anything he was doing. I was excited at first seeing Julianne Moore, but she rushes through her dialogue that she becomes just as unconvincing as Vaughn. William H. Macy was a misfire, as was Viggo Mortensen. The weird thing about this 'Psycho' is where the humor is concerned. Macy and Vaughn don't seem like they're having any fun at all in their scene together, which should be the funniest scene in the film. However, Moore seems to be having the time of her life when she's being attacked by Vaughn, putting all her feminist hilarity into kicking him in the face. Overall, all of the performances, including the horrible voice over of 'Mother' were a complete misfire. Now, the shower scene is an immortal scene from the original. If your going to do a mostly shot by shot remake, why would you not keep intact the integrity of the shower scene? There is a big pause after Mother opens the curtain where Marion takes time to process that there's someone there before any music or stabbing or screaming happens. Very awkward. And then, three immortal shots are left out or changed: The shot of Marion's hand sliding down the wall is completely left out. The shot of Marion falling to the floor is changed so that we can have a buttshot, and the tilt of the camera zooming away from the eye is replaced with a massive twirling of the camera around the eye. Not dramatic at all. Now, after all that, there were a few things I enjoyed: Viggo Mortensen's nude scene. I only wished it showed more. And the birds in the cellar. Oh, and I'd like to say that Rita Wilson gives the worst performance of her career. That said, it is fun to compare the two films and to bash on the completely nonscary elements in this version. Go and watch the original.
-
August 8, 2007
hmmmm
in bits it was ok
the rest wasnt really im afraid.
Retarded ending with some lame acting, apart from Vince Vaughn, who was good but not brilliant.
-
August 7, 2007
Let's just say that after watching this film... I'm not stopping on a roadside motel between California and Arizona. Mkay? The film about Norman Bates and his psychotic mother is enough to horrify anyone... perhaps even enough to steer clear or any sort of motel for a while. Not to mention your fear of showering after seeing the famous "Shower Scene". Once again, Alfred Hitchcock gives us a suspensful thriller that simply can't be ignored.
-
August 7, 2007
I have no idea how to rate this.
I am not a huge fan of Hitchcock's Psycho, though I find it to be a very good film. I was certainly opposed to the idea of remaking it, but remaking it like this? Shot by shot?
This is as experimental a film as has been made, I feel. but that does not make it a good one. What, pray tell, was the point? That a film is not a succession of shots edited together, but everything that happens in between? When Gus was asked why he would want to do a shot-by-shot remake of Psycho he simply answered "So no one else would have to.". It may have been a sly joke on his part, but it makes a kind of demented sense. Was this his take on remakes? A vapid rehashing? Would it have worked if there had never been a film called Psycho before this one? I guess we'll never know the answer to these questions, but Gus Van Sant is a true artist. I choose to believe he made a conscious decision, that this is film plays the audience, that it was a statement and not an attempt to cash in.
I still have absolutely no idea how to rate this film.
*Note*: I've settled on giving it 3 stars out of repect for Gus Van Sant. I am not recommending this film nor am I trashing it. I just refuse to believe that it is absolutely and completely pointless.
-
August 4, 2007
say what you want about van sant copying the hitchcock classic ~ it is still a good movie! vince vaugh is excellent as norman bates
-
August 1, 2007
absolutely identical in dialogue to the original, but absolutely miscast, rent the original instead.
-
July 30, 2007
CLASS. The music, the setting, the shower scene, the mother in the cellar... everything about this iconic film has passed into cinema history. A genuine virtuoso classic and the grandaddy of all slashers.
-
July 21, 2007
Rule #1 of moviemaking... dont fuck with the classics! Maybe that's why Van Sant decided to remake it 'shot for shot' or maybe he just wanted it to be a worthy psycho homage. It really wasn't. Psycho should never, ever, be shown in colour. The final scenes were so creepy in the original, in this version, theyre just empty. Awful (and Julianne Moore just makes matters worse).
-
July 17, 2007
I've only seen parts of the first film and it was a letdown, however the remake has the possibility of being good..
-
July 13, 2007
Widely regarded as Hitchcock's best film, "Psycho" is certainly his most imitated and perhaps his most influential. Ostensibly a Grand Guignol thriller with Freudian undertones, it's a perfectly realised, visually rich, and chilling look at masculinity and schizophrenia that had more than a hand in redefining the role of the spectator in terms of mainstream cinema, most notably perhaps in the famous shower sequence which re-explored the nature of cinematic voyeurism.
As effective as it is as a genre piece, the proceedings are of course shot through with Hitchcock¹s sly, mordant and slightly sadistic humour which revels in the consequences of the oedipally induced madness and the sardonic irony of much of the dialogue ("Mother's not herself today"). For all its playfulness however, it's still gripping and irrevocably gruesome fare played to perfection by a top notch cast, chief amongst them a suitably jumpy Perkins in a career defining role. An audacious treasure trove of riches.
-
July 12, 2007
Not as good as the original, but still a fairly decent performance from the cast. Made me jump, and still creeped me out.
-
July 9, 2007
I hated this. I was completely bored during this film, because the acting was so awful. I had seen the original many times before I first saw this, but I didn't get bored because Perkin's performance was amazing. This junk was pointless, & not very good. Some of the worst casting decisions ever were made in this trash.
-
July 4, 2007
Great remake. Alot of people fail to recognize of all the remakes coming are way beside the hills have eyes and the amityville horror this one is definitly at the top.
-
June 27, 2007
Sorry, but, no. Van Sant is one of the directors I'm kind of linked to being that I live in Portland, OR - but at the same time, this was just...meh. Very meh. Gets points for the great cast and a couple of interesting ideas. That's it.
-
June 26, 2007
What the hell was the point of remaking a classic movie frame by frame. word for word, bad move Gus!
-
June 23, 2007
I appreciate the film study that Gus Van Sant presents, but whatever wasn't part of the original that he did was terrible. C'mon, the reason Norman Bates was terrifying was because he was such a nice guy. We've seen the perverted murderer. This movie was also banking on the fact that everyone already knew that Norman was the killer before seeing it.
-
June 21, 2007
Kinda disappointed in this remake. I guess I didn't really see the point. It was all re-created word-for-word, shot-for-shot, except in colour, with different actors, modern cars and of course a different director.
Can you truly re-create Hitchcock?
-
June 19, 2007
Not to bad a remake, but it will never be as goo, original or memorable as Hitchcocks. Vince Vaughn didn't do too bad at Norman Bates.
-
I remember seeing some of this on tv once, I didn't even realize it was the remake until I seen Vince Vaughn. I'll see the original before I see this.
-
June 14, 2007
This movie was soo bad. It was just like the older one but in color. But what made psycho was being in black and white. Also, thinking about it now, Vince Vaughn did play the charcter really creepy. *chills*
-
June 13, 2007
This movie didn't come close to living up to the original. Some things should never be duplicated and this was one of them.
-
June 10, 2007
As much as I think a remake was unneccesary, I don't mind Gus Van Sant's version. I would definitely choose Hitchcock's version if I had a choice though.
-
|
Hide Chat
