Psycho III
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.68 You Save: $7.31 (73%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.00 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Psycho III
Movie Review: Better than it needed to be
Summary: 3 Stars
Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) continues to struggle with his inner demons in this film, set only a few weeks after the conclusion of "Psycho II." New visitors to the Bates motel include a suicidal ex-nun (Diana Scarwid), a sinister musician (Jeff Fahey), an investigative reporter (Roberta Maxwell), and a horde of rowdy party-goers. Perkins's performance as Bates is always the best reason to watch any of the "Psycho" sequels, and in this one he steps behind the camera as well. He does a good job. There is a sense of atmosphere and a nightmarish frenzy to several sequences that places it several notches above the previous film. The script (by Charles Edward Pogue) is better, too, although these continuations continue to make the mistake of trying to "deepen" Bates's character by giving him a more convoluted backstory. (Wait, his aunt loved his father who married his mother so he got kidnapped, then someone got murdered...)Movie Review: Minor Downfall from Original and Part II
Summary: 3 Stars
Psycho II was an outstanding sequel. Not only did it continue the Psycho history well but it also had a great storyline that stood up on its own.
In Psycho III, we can see that the franchise started to go into the direction of slasher film (contrary to people who think it was a slasher film from the beginning--it was a suspense film). Psycho III is a good film, but coming off the heels of Psycho and Psycho II allowed us to see the downfall. I mean, there's nothing wrong with a good slasher film, but so much more was expected.
I would still recommend this film to Psycho fans who want to complete their Psycho history. After all, any movie that continues the history of Norman Bates isn't all bad is it? (Scrap that last comment--the remake of Psycho proved that wrong).
Movie Review: Weakest of the sequels but good!
Summary: 3 Stars
4 years after "Psycho II", Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) has Mother back in his mind again and still hasn't felt that he's been cured. A former nun (Diana Scarwid) needed a place to stay for a bit at the Bates motel and Norman gets a new assistant (Jeff Fahey) to help him run the motel, the lady reminds Norman of the first female vicitim he killed but soon killings start happening again.
Entertaining and violent second sequel to Alfred Hitchcock's all-time masterpiece "Psycho" is also directed by Perkins himself. Some decent acting and good kills by Norman, it's basically the weakest of the sequels but very enjoyable and better then the 1998 "Psycho" remake in my opinion.
Movie Review: good film with dark humor weakest film in quartet
Summary: 3 Stars
Anthony PERKINS directed himself as nORMAN bATES IN THIS VERY black gory comedy that is equqally horrofilm and yet has some very funny moments. Perkins is very adept at staging the graphic murders and bringing out the humor in nORMAN. HE is obviusly crazy againa an dkillin gyet you stil hope he wil finally be able to stop himself. Ending very stupid and film falls aprt in last 45 minutes. As with Psycho 2 excellent phtotgraphay and good actingMovie Review: Psycho 3 Bites!
Summary: 2 Stars
Psycho 3 was lousy and I agree that Psycho III was the weakest Psycho installment of them all and that Psycho II seemed to be where the Psycho installments stopped being good.
As a matter of fact, Psycho III seemed foremost like a repeat or a reliving of how the original Psycho was since Norman Bates(Tony Perkins) was just simply reliving his days as a schizophrenic posing as both himself and his dead mother killing customers at the Bates Motel again like he did in the original Psycho, except Psycho III was a lot less heart pounding, a lot less suspenseful, a lot less mysterious, and a lot less genuine, which is what made PSYCHO 3 lag big time, but Psycho I and II were a lot more superb and Anthony Perkins did a much better job at playing Norman Bates in those 2 Psychos, but didn't do so hot in Psycho 3.
Therefore, the Psycho sequels seemed to have started losing their touch when it hit Psycho III, since it wasn't as mysterious or as blood curdling as the first two Psycho installations. So the film makers should've done a better job at making Psycho III, because it's not worth the buy, unlike the original PSYCHO and PSYCHO II.
In addition to that, Psycho 3 was not the most shocking of them all, even though it said so on the advertisements. it was Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho I that was the most shocking of them all as well as the original and still the best to this very day, even though I liked Psycho 2 the best out of the whole Psycho series.
I also suspect that Psycho 3's reason for not being that great and for not being as genuine or a significant as the first 2 was perhaps due to the fact that Tony Perkins had directed Psycho III as well as being the main character in this movie, but I honestly don't think that Tony Perkins did nearly as much of a good job at directing this movie as opposed to directors Richard Franklin(Psycho 2) and Alfred Hitchcock(Psycho I).
In addition to why Psycho 3 wasn't as good as the first 2 Psycho's; the music score done by Carter Burwell wasn't as good nor as creepy nor as intriguing as the music scoring done by Jerry Goldsmith in Psycho II and the music scoring done in Psycho I, although Carter Burwell's music scoring isn't too shabby in general, but Jerry Goldsmith is one of my favorite music composers when it comes to movies.