Psycho
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.99 You Save: $10.99 (73%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.91 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Psycho
Movie Review: Doesn't Get Enough Credit
Summary: 4 Stars
It's been many years since I saw the original Psycho; I remember the entire story, but as far as the look and feel and sound of it...I remember merely fragments. Having just viewed Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho, I now remember how good Hitchcock's version was. I want to begin by saying that this film is underrated. Sure, it's not better than the original and this movie really doesn't have any originality in it...But I think this remake holds up better than a few remakes that actually changed the story around. The movie, itself, has no originality because we've already seen this exact story, with almost the exact same dialouge, and almost the exact same shots back in 1960. It is original in the fact that somebody actually tried to remake a film using the original script and refilming the movie shot-for-shot. With a different movie, this might've actually improved upon it. Telling you the story is pointless, but I'll fill you in anyway. Marion Crane (Anne Heche) has just stolen 400,000 dollars and is now on the run. She stumbles upon a secluded motel run by a lonely young man named Norman Bates (Vince Vaughan).
After Marion is killed by Norman's "mother," her sister and boyfriend begin to worry about her. Her sister is played by Julianne Moore (who looks gorgeous) and the boyfriend is played by Viggo Mortensen (pre-Lord of the Rings). Also looking for her is a private investigator played by William H. Macy, who's quite good. Now all the actors do a pretty good job. Heche was a reasonable replacement for Janet Leigh, Julianne Moore doesn't miss a beat, Mortensen is good, and Vaughn (surprisingly) makes the character of Norman Bates all his own. At the same time, he brings that same boyish innocence to the role that Anthony Perkins did. The things that Van Sant contributed to on this film was adding nudity (you see several fairly graphic shots of Anne Heche during the shower scene) and accomplishing shots that Hitchcock (apparently) wanted at the time but couldn't do. He also changes the way the final scene between the Vaughn-Moore-Mortensen unfolds, but there were a few things in the film that he should've changed and didn't.
During one death scene (I won't say who in case someone reading this didn't see the film), the character seems to float down the stairs. In Hitchcock's film, this worked perfectly...It was more of a metaphorical thing anyway. In Van Sant's version it looks funny and campy. I hate to admit it, but I did enjoy this film. It's kind of like the movies Chinatown and The Two Jakes (it's sequel). Chinatown was an entertaining and fantastic film, a cinematic masterpiece. The Two Jakes was an entertaining film and a good sequel.
Hitchcock's Psycho will always be the one people go for in the video store (rightfully so), but this really isn't terrible. Seeing things like that recreated is actually kind of interesting. As I said, I think it was a cool idea to do the shot-for-shot thing; Although, it probably would've been better to try it with a Foreign film. Shoot it in English, shot-for-shot. One more cool thing about the film was it's use of color. I don't just mean as in the fact that the original is in black and white, but the colors in this film are actually quite lovely.
GRADE: B-
Movie Review: A reasonable idea with some flaws
Summary: 4 Stars
We all know that Psycho was a classic, historic black and white movie by Alfred Hitchcock. It was a movie about light and shadow, about what seems real and what is actually true. A lot of what made the movie so gripping was that black and white visual, the fine-controlled soundtrack, the "realism" of the characters. Marion Crane seemed like the girl next door. Anthony Perkins seemed incredibly dead-on with his performance of Norman Bates, and much has been made about how his own life was hauntingly similar to the character's.
That all being said, I know a ton of people who never saw that original film. It could be because it was in black and white. It could just be that it was released many years ago. Whatever the reasons, it's unlikely they would go back and watch it "just because". I really think that, in a way, Gus Van Sant did a service by making a new version. It's like having a new version of Robin Hood, or a new version of The Three Musketeers. It brings the story to a new generation, and gives them that push to go out and watch the previous versions.
I agree that some charms of the black and white are lost - some of the moodiness, the edginess. I accept that as a problem of dealing with modern audiences. For example I *love* Casablanca, with its interplay of light and shadow. Still, I also accept that a modern day drama/romance even if on the exact same topic would be done with color. Some scenes would suffer - but others would benefit.
I do wish that the characters were more able to be connected with. It's not necessary for Norman to "be Anthony Perkins" - but he does need to be believable in the context of his character's life and situation. I didn't find that to really be the case here. The same is true for Marion. She was someone I could believe in and root for in the original movie. In this remake, she's far more superficial.
I did really enjoy many of the supporting characters. Viggo fans will get a fully naked Viggo for the "sex scene" - which is a shame in the way, because again it draws away from the characters actual personalities and goes for the smut angle. Maybe that's just another casualty of making a film in modern times.
One thing I *did* appreciate was the final wrap up scene. It always REALLY bugged me that they were so obsessed with exposition-man speaking that they completely forgot about the feelings of the sister. In the current version they handle that much better. On the other hand, if they're going to make tweaks like that, why didn't they tweak the reason Marion was stealing the money? It's because Viggo won't marry her until he can "support her"? Surely that's a pretty silly excuse in modern times. Many of my female friends make more than their husbands, it's not odd or scary. Certainly it's nothing to go stealing a ton of cash to "fix" ...
Movie Review: A gnashing of teeth
Summary: 4 Stars
It's compelling to think about why Van Sant would remake a film like Psycho--one with a devoted and vociferous fan base, acclaimed as a masterpiece of its genre. What could he do right--or better? As his reward: the increasingly out-of-touch Leonard Maltin describes the film as a pointless, tainted insult, a view shared by most critics and fans. The film sputters at the box office and encourages only meagre discussion of its fantastic premise--why would anyone do this? I tried to look at this movie with new eyes but found that impossible--inevitably I compared it not to the original Hitchcock "Psycho" (which I admit to not remembering well), but to the ideal (albeit completely fabricated) masterpiece of moviemaking suspense "Psycho!" I had constructed in my mind out of 5-star reviews, "10 Best" lists, and hyperbolic exclamatory pullquotes. Nothing can compare to the cinematic perfection I'd conjured up against Gus Van Sant, Anne Heche, and particularly Vince Vaughn. This remake was a disaster. Heche, maddeningly unavailable, wears psychedelic cutey-pie dresses; Vaughn masturbates (complete with "slapping" sounds) to the hole in his parlor wall; we see a boobie(!); modern devices aplenty! Some of the holdovers from the original seem anachronistic and quaint (the voiceovers in the car as Heche drives away, the broad "holy cow" face her boss makes when he notices her on the street), suggesting that the actors and the filmmakers struggled under the greatness of the original structure.
But how very modern. How very acute we are to find an insult in a tribute. How subtle we are to scoff at hucksters and showmen. As one movie fan said of the original, "You have to give it a chance, and if your not easily scared don't think it will scare the pance off you. AND SEE THIS BEFOR THE REMAKE." Credit Saul Bass for a well designed movie, but this is the only version of Psycho I own. It's my Psycho, and it's an appropriate Psycho. Van Sant should remake it every 15-20 years for the rest of my life.
For those who care, the DVD looks and sounds great.
Movie Review: Was it "Psycho" to attempt a remake?
Summary: 4 Stars
Skepticism mixed with a private anxiety is the best way I have of describing the contrasting feelings I first felt when I heard that Hollywood was attempting a remake of Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho." For anyone who has ever seen the original, it stands alone, a bright shining star amongst the immense library of cinematic masterpieces that Hollywood has served up over the years. Still, the idea was intriguing, and so I did not hesitate to attempt the remake. At the opening, I was both excited and exhilerated to see the original credits being re-created in true form, faithful down even to the motion in the title word "PSYCHO". I was distracted some by the change of camera photography, and the addition of some dialogue, though it may be attributed to an unedited version of Hitchcock's script-of that I cannot be sure. I guess I took offense initially to the portrayal of Norman Bates masturbating as he watched Marion Crane disrobe for her shower, but upon reflection, it began to make sense. In the 60's, voyeurism would have been considered completely unlawful-horrifying to anyone watching. Though it is still considered as much today, I don't think that it holds the shock value that a scene like that would have in the 60's. So, to give some of the shock back to the audience, the application of a new, revolting and repulsive act enabled some of that same "surprise" to be recaptured. I cannot say I agree with its addition, but I feel it did achieve the desired goal. After the shower sequence, the remainder of the film remained RELATIVELY faithful to the script, though large sections of the closing monologue, given by the psychiatrist, were cut from the script, which I found to be a disappointment. Also, the dialogue (and prop) updates were clumsy, leaving one to wonder who decided to mix the original script with the 90's inserts. Overall, I do feel the movie is worth the time and the money, but do not expect it to hold the same thrill that the original Psycho has for nearly 40 years. Its a copy, an imitation, and like so many things, you cannot replicate perfection...even with better technology.Movie Review: lighten up....check in ...and enjoy!
Summary: 4 Stars
Okay, I am a HUGE Hitchcock fan and a HUGE fan of the original...and the late great Tony Perkins...but , this isn't so bad...in fact...its fun!
I think thefact that its populated with very good actors, some eerily similar to the originals, and it is almost a frame by frame recreation is a good thing. Young people don't want to know from black and white and "old school" for the most part and the idea that this story could be told with current actors and in "color" to reach a new audience was very good. They didn't mess with the story, add a bunch of splashy violence either...more good stuff...and
Another reviewer...heck several referred to this as a BOMB? I'll tell you the only Bomb in this flick is Vince Vaughan...that guy is a guarantee 10 megaton bomb in any movie he appears and he takes on hallowed ground following in Tony Perkins footsteps and never misses a beat.
This remake was made with respect and dignity...
Why wasn't there this kind of outrage when they were remaking..
Oceans 11, The Poseiden Adventure, The Pink Panther (now that is a real crime) or any of the other idiot TV to movie flixs (can you hardly wait for Travolta and JLO in DALLAS?)...
its a quality DVD and the bonus "making of" is a hoot! and informative....WELL worth the 10 bucks or less you need to shell out. There are MANY worse ways to spend a couple of hours.