Terrible

Rating: Null/10 (22 March 2001)

I've always thought of Psycho as a masterpiece of classic horror, one that makes you cringe and sparks true fear, especially when pulling the shower curtain across, leaving you exposed, naked to monstrosities lurking on the other side: and that was before I'd even seen it. Now that I have seen it....I believe that Hitchcock is the most overrated director of all time. With the exception of the the shower scene which is effective in the same way Blair Witch was, it preys on basic human emotions, this one being vulnerability. I mean, what could be more vulnerable that a naked woman in a shower in a strange hotel, a woman who's sinned and you know is "gonna get it" anyway? The only surprise is the short amount off time it takes to discard the leading lady. In that sense, it is a true shock.... but with that exception what does Psycho really have. Nothing. And I have proof. Consider the new adaptation of Psycho by Gus van Zant. It bombed at the theaters and was slayed by critics, even though Zant's version is identical in almost every way. And these are the same critics who call the original Psycho a masterpiece. Their only critique should have been on the acting or the photography, but alot of them attacked pacing and story line, even though they were the same. It's the memory of a scary film that you saw when you were young that won't let you destroy the illusion. Well an illusion is all it is. Rear Window and North by Northwest are boring films speckled with a few exciting moments, nothing more and so is Psycho. I feel the same way about Toxic Avenger. When I was 5, I thought it was fantastic, best movie ever-then I saw it again a year ago and it was filth, complete garbage but at least I let go of the memory of the film and concentrated on the film itself. Some of those Hitchcock fans ought to do the same....