Psycho
Tags: insanity, mystery, murder

Plot synopsis:
During a lunchtime tryst in Phoenix, Arizona, a real estate secretary named Marion Crane discusses with her boyfriend, Sam Loomis, how they cannot afford to get married because of Sam's debts. After lunch, Marion returns to work, where a client drops off a $40,000 cash payment on a property. Her boss asks her to deposit the money in the bank, and she asks if she can take the rest of the afternoon off. Returning home, she begins to pack for an unplanned trip, deciding to steal the money and give it to Sam in Fairvale, California. She is seen by her boss on her way out of town, which makes her nervous. During the trip, she pulls over on the side of the road and falls asleep, only to be awakened by a state patrol officer. He is suspicious about her nervous behavior but allows her to drive on. Shaken by the encounter, Marion stops at an automobile dealership and trades in her Ford Mainline, with its Arizona license plates, for a Ford Custom 300 that has California tags. Her transaction is all for naught—the highway patrolman sees her at the car dealership and witnesses her purchase of the newer car.
Driving on, Marion encounters a sudden rainstorm and decides to stop for the night at the Bates Motel; the proprietor, Norman Bates, invites her to a light dinner after she checks in. She accepts, but then hears an argument between Norman and his mother about bringing a woman into her house. They eat in the motel parlor, where he tells her about his hobby of taxidermy and his life with his mother, who is mentally ill and forbids him to have a life outside of her. Returning to her room, Marion decides to go back to Phoenix to return the stolen money. She prepares to take a shower, unaware that Norman is spying on her. As she is showering, a shadowy female figure suddenly comes in and stabs her to death with a chef's knife. Norman discovers the murder and meticulously cleans up the crime scene, putting Marion's corpse and her possessions—including the embezzled money—into the trunk of her car and sinking it in the swamps near the motel.
A week later, Marion's sister Lila arrives in Fairvale and confronts Sam about the whereabouts of her sister. A private investigator named Arbogast approaches them and confirms that Marion is wanted for stealing the $40,000 from her employer. He eventually comes across the Bates Motel, where Norman's behavior arouses his suspicions. After hearing that Marion had met with Norman's mother, he asks to speak with her, but Norman refuses. Arbogast calls Lila and Sam, informing them of what he has discovered and saying he intends to speak with Norman's mother. He goes to the Bates' home in search of her; as he reaches the top of the stairs, Mrs. Bates suddenly appears from the bedroom and murders him. When Lila and Sam do not hear from Arbogast, they go to the local sheriff, who informs them that Mrs. Bates has been dead for ten years; she had killed herself and her lover. Concerned, Lila and Sam make their way to the motel. Norman takes his unwilling mother from her room, telling her he needs to hide her for a while in the fruit cellar.
At the motel, Lila and Sam meet Norman. Sam distracts him by striking up a conversation while Lila sneaks up to the house. When Norman eventually realizes what they want, he knocks Sam out and rushes to the house. Lila sees Norman approaching and attempts to hide by going down steps that lead to a cellar. There she finds Mrs. Bates sitting in a chair. Lila turns her around and discovers that she is in fact a mummified corpse. Lila screams as a figure comes running into the cellar: Norman, holding a chef's knife and wearing his mother's clothes and a wig. Before Norman can attack Lila, Sam, having regained consciousness, subdues him.
At the local courthouse, a psychiatrist explains that Norman had murdered Mrs. Bates and her lover ten years prior out of jealousy. Unable to bear the guilt, he exhumed her corpse and began to treat it as if she were still alive. In order to preserve that illusion, he recreated his mother in his own mind as an alternate personality, often dressing in her clothes and talking to himself in her voice. This "Mother" personality is just as jealous and possessive as the real Mrs. Bates had been: whenever Norman feels attracted to another woman, "Mother" flies into a rage and kills the woman. As "Mother", Norman had killed two young girls prior to Marion, as well as Arbogast. The psychiatrist then says the "Mother" personality has taken permanent hold of Norman's mind. While Norman sits in a holding cell, Mrs. Bates' voice is heard protesting that the murders were Norman's doing and that she "wouldn't even harm a fly." Meanwhile, Marion's car is pulled out of the swamp.

Review: While it was a pointless re-make to begin with, the miscasting of the story's most important character sucks this film down completely.As a side note, I feel that Hollywood's propensity for re-making great movies because 'young' people refuse to watch anything that's not filmed in color not only stinks to high heaven of corporate greed but is exceptionally disrespectful to the original work.
The only good thing I saw about the film was that Gus Van Sant was able to open the movie with the shot Hitch had envisioned.
Hitchcock's masterpiece is much better and Van Sant fails to realize that in hiding the nudity and the gore, the original shower scene is all the more terrifying.
The acting of Anne Heche and Vince Vaughan is so inferior to that of Perkins and Leigh in the original version they have to be seen to be believed.
Yet, if they were going to keep everything the same, why bother when you weren't going to improve on Tony Perkins, Janet Leigh and the original cast?Did they honestly think Vince Vaughn was going to be as good or better than Perkins?
No matter what other people have said you can't review this movie without comparing it to the original, if it existed on it's own it would be a 2-3 out of 5 film but it is a remake of a 4-5 out of 5 film and so has standards to live up to and we need to see if it reached those standards.
That said this film doesn't just fail to be as good as the original it fails spectacularly, like it or not the original was one of the best movies ever made, the shower scene will never be forgotten, the remake was meant to be a celebration of Hitchcock but ended up actually degrading him and his master work.The degrading aspects of this picture were Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche.
In the remake that whole dynamic is gone, I must admit to Janet Leigh not being my type but she is very attractive and you can see that, Anne Heche is really unattractive and so Norman finding 'her' Marion attractive is unbelievable if you add that to Vince Vaughn's Norman masturbating whilst looking at her and you get a Norman that is just waiting for a chance to jack off at any naked woman no matter what she looks like, who you feel absolutely no sympathy for, they further destroy Norman's innocent nature by putting the porno mags in his room.
In the original when Pat Hitchcock says the line 'he must have noticed my wedding ring' it elicits a response of laughter as she is absolutely kidding herself, when Rita says it it just seems plausible as there really isn't any other reason why any man would flirt with Anne Heche over her.I'll admit that I am very biased, the original 'Psycho' is my favorite film of all time, had the film been a reworking, with a different angle, then you could have turned these characters on their heads and it would have been perfectly acceptable.Hitch famously thaught the film would be too gory in colour and made it in black and white to lessen it.
I know this has been said, but I watched the making of this film, and the director was like "Oh, I just want to update it and shoot each scene shot by shot like the original"...
I mean, the acting wasn't up to par, but honestly, it looked like the actors just watched the original and just memorized the lines from there and made it their crappy own.Watching the making of this film, I wanted to slap Anne Hasche, she said "I've never seen the original, I just wanted to work with Gus." Ooh, that made me angry, because frankly, it's not just that, she really sucked in this role as Marian, she wasn't convincing, not to mention her shower scene really was horrible.
There is likely a very good reason for that...it stinks.Like nearly ALL the endless remakes and reboots that have been plaguing movie goers for the past decade or so....all this is, is a heartless version of the original.It has no heart.It has no soul.It is a retelling of a film that we all love and cherish...and it adds nothing to the story.
In the supporting roles, there's nothing much to comment on except maybe for James Remar's note-perfect reproduction of the original film's state trooper.This is intended to be a shot-for-shot remake, yet Van Sant felt compelled to add a couple of needless things.
Anne Heche may have been atrocious but, unlike Janet Leigh who was untruthfully advertised as one of the biggest stars of the film, Anne Heche was given last billing in the opening credits.I read on the cover of a copy of the Psycho novel that Gus Van Sant claimed this was not a remake of the Hitchcock film but rather a new adaptation of the original novel.
The only difference between the HItchcock classic and this poor imitation is color,wide screen and Leila's Walkman!!A movie which's supposed to generate thrills and fear leaves me completely indifferent.Now you' re going to tell me it will urge the young generations to see the original?balderdash!This "psycho 1998" is a giant spoiler.They could have done something different,for instance ,by casting an actor closer to Bloch 's Bates ,an obese man.They content themselves with an obnoxious rehash!A pox on it!and long live Alfred Hitchcock!.
With the shot-by-shot remake of "Psycho", Gus Van Sant rises to the challenge of directing a film even worse than his 1994 dud "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues." This travesty is even worse than I thought it would be, and I set my expectations very low.The acting is appalling, with the exception of William H.
And why would Vince Vaughn take on a role so closely associated with Anthony Perkins, who not only played Norman Bates in the original film, but three sequels, too?
The biggest surprise in this cast is Julianne Moore, who is usually excellent in any role; here, she looks embarrassed, like she's going through the motions.Universal could have used the money they wasted on this rape of cinema to restore the original 1960 film, or perhaps one of Mr. Hitchcock's lesser known pictures..
Of all the classics out in the movie world, why does director Gus Van Sant (Good Will Hunting) have to screw up Psycho.
First of all,the whole idea of remaking a classic such as "Psycho" is nothing short of ludicrous.A lot of time and effort was wasted here.I am sure they are smart enough to know that they could not improve on the original,so they must have had a tribute to Alfred Hitchcock on their minds.However,the idea that began as a well intentioned tribute, results in being a slap in the face to the horror master.This movie is poorly produced,poorly acted,and unnecessary to begin with.The original classic stands well on it's own,even after 40 years.The event of Hitch returning from the grave and coming after the people responsible for this piece of trash is unlikely,but if I were them,I would sleep with one eye open just in case.Don't waste your time..
Anyone who has ever watched any of the other 4 original Psycho movies starring Anthony Perkins, knows that NORMAN BATES DOES NOT MASTURBATE!!!
There really is no reason to remake a movie as superbly directed as Psycho so I'm not sure what Gus Van Sant was trying to prove.
It was somewhat more of a strained effort to watch Vince Vaugh trying to waltz through the performance of Normal Bates.This 1998 remake might actually pass as an adequate watch for those not familiar with the original movie.
I was cringing so often and it was toe-curling to witness director Gus Van Sant do absolutely no justice to the original "Psycho" movie..
Even the first scene after the credits roll is THE EXACT SAME AS THE ORIGINAL but with color !!I'm so mad at this movie, this is legitimately the worst remake I ever saw.
You just kind of want him to stop giggling and stuttering.This brings me to the Magnum Opus of the sins in this film: WHAT KIND OF A PERSON WOULD WATCH PSYCHO AND THINK "u know what this scene would be better with Norman intensely rubbing one out"?
Macy is about as pleasant and fitting in the role as Balsam, but the stair/stabbing scene is still going to have you wincing through the colors.Only remake a movie when: you can modernize the script enough to keep it from feeling outlandish, bring something original to the plot and something new for the audience to think about, and sustain the feel of the source material.
This known shocker concerns about Marion Crane(Anna Heche in similar role Janet Leigh),she works at a Phoenix office when his employer(Chad Everett) trust her a money .Seeing the opportunity to take the cash and beginning a new life along with her fiancé(Viggo Mortensen in role of John Gavin).Larcenous Marion Crane leaves Phoenix(Arizona) and heads with her car toward California where lives her lover.Later,when is caught in a storm, leaves the highway and pull into to the Bates hotel.The motel with twelve rooms(and 12 showers) is managed by a strange and paranoid young(Vince Vaughn-Anthony Perkins)who seems to be controlled by his overbearing mummy , and ,she's living in a creaky old mansion nearly to hotel,then rare things start to happen.After a detective called Arbogast(William H.
Macy with similar character at Martin Balsam), her sister(Julianna Moore-Vera Miles)along with Sam(Viggo Mortensen)are looking for to Marion, asking help to sheriff(Philip Baker Hall-John McIntire).The story is a rip off from original classic picture,frame-for-frame, with a few news scenes though filmed in glimmer color and lensed beautifully by cameraman Christopher Doyle.Thus,it contains the same screenplay by Joseph Stefano and Robert Bloch infused with deliciously macabre wit,plenty of grisly murders,stabbing shots,horror,suspense and lots of blood.The highlights film are,of course,the famous murder of Marion Crane-Anne Heche completely copied scene-for-scene although with a few more nudism and the creepy final images where is turned out the killing conclusion.Again the suspenseful music score,adding impressive excitement,nowadays deemed a classic soundtrack by Bernard Hermann is arranged by Danny Elffman.The motion picture is regularly directed by Gus Van Sant(Drugstore cowboy,Elephant,among others),nowadays considered a cult-director.The original Hitchcock film is highly superior to this one and the numerous movies which tried duplicate it, like as : Psycho II(1983) by Richard Franklin,Psycho III(1986)by Anthony Perkins,and for cable TV :PsychoIV(1990)by Mick Garris.
You have a 1960 classic, so why make the exact same thing over again?Let's just hope Gus Van Sant never touches Jaws or any other films like that.0/10.
I don't want to scare anybody and I certainly don't want to offend anybody, but I have come to realize that Gus Van Sant's exploration of Hitchcock's 'psycho' is quite simply one of the most baffling masterpieces of the last decade.My ideas aren't entirely concrete and I know millions will think I'm crazy or stupid.
Exception Wizard of Oz. The acting is actually pretty good better then anticipated Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche do a great job doing their reprisal of my favorite scene in the movie when both are in the parlor.
I recently finished watching Gus Van Sant's faithful reproduction of Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece, *Psycho.*  This movie was excellent, in nearly all formats, and I am somewhat surprised as to why it did so poorly in both box-office and reviews.
Bates is a fat, fidgety, paranoid young man who I think would have been cast better as someone such as Wayne Knight (Newman off of Seinfeld).But overall, the movie is an excellent adaption of the book, both Hitchcock's and Van Sant's.
It was actually about the controversial remake by Gus Van Sant - a film that I've always been amazed at the negative reaction by older filmgoers around the world.From the reaction in class today, it's nice to know that like me, there are plenty of people my age (in there mid 20's) who liked the original but like the remake even more just for trying something knew and appropriating a classic for the younger generation.
He does a great job at re-interpreting the character as does over cast member in the film.After watching the original film a few weeks ago, as much as I still like it, I find every character in the film - with the exception of Norman Bates - to be flat and very uninteresting.John Gavin's performance in the original 'Psycho' was terrible as he was nothing but a man there to solve a mystery while the same character in the remake is a laid back cow-boy thanks to Viggo Mortensen.
Anne Heche makes for an interesting Marion Crane and comes across as far more 'human' than Janet Leigh did.Take the amazing performances and add some surrealistic colour that is quite unique, plus some clever cinematography from Chris Doyle, Bernard Hermann's groovy score (in stereo!) and the result is a film that is creepy from an entertainment point of view and a fascinating film from an analytical point of view.The original 'Psycho' was way before it's time and it's nice to know Van Sant was able to shoot some scene's off Hitchcock's original story boards that he wasn't allowed to film in 1960.
This remake was never meant to be better than the original 'Psycho' but it was supposed to re-create something that cinema has lost these days and it pulled it off beautifully.All those people who detest this film for simply being a remake of 'Psycho' really have no idea what film making is really about and should be very pleased that Gus Van Sant didn't turn 'Psycho' into a tacky 'slasher' film.
I love the look of the film - the use of color is overly saturated and makes it look so cool (the abstract imagery during the murders really ads to the scenes).The cast all go out of their way to deliver a performance that is different to the original.
Psycho unfortunately has already had its unique qualities tarnished by Gus Van Sant and the rest of the ensemble involved in this version, makes me wish Good Will Hunting wasn't as successful so he wouldn't be commissioned to have a stab at Psycho (lovely play on words there ladies and germs).The best part of this film is the end, enough said I think.Malcolm McDowell: 'I hope i am not alive to see it' (A Clockwork Orange remake).
While Director Gus Van Sant copied Hitchcock's work shot-for-shot (with one obvious addition that seems to be way out of place and is just plain disrespectful of the original), it cannot even come close to the original.
I know remakes have been big in Hollywood for some time, but give me a break.Van Sant obviously didn't try to change anything around from Hitchcock's vision, in fact he tried to copy it exactly.
Anne Heche was ok, nothing special and Julianne Moore looked like She just came that afternoon to do the scene, completely not into film .Gus Van Sant haven't put anything new and refreshing  which should happened if you are UPDATING the original.
But Van Sant was motivated, not by simple greed, but by an apparent desire to actually make a good movie and one that would compare favorably to Hitchcock's original.
I'm not sure how much thought Hitchcock put into choosing to make PSYCHO in black and white (legend has it that he did it just because it was cheaper at the time), but Van Sant makes no apparent attempt to use color effectively.
The original PSYCHO is often thought of as being a director's film, a work whose success is primarily based on Hitchcock's style.
Firstly, the remake of Psycho is not trying to improve on the original and as for those who are still wondering 'Why?', it is all made abundantly clear by Gus Van Sant on the DVD release of this film.
Van Sant pays tribute to the original film by keeping it exactly how it is and should be.So with improved acting, up to date technology, this is an interesting way of taking a modern look at a classic.
If you've never seen Psycho, well, this is a great way of experiencing it without having to accommodate for datedness.While there is some occasional cheapness due to remaking a scene exactly, for example a certain exact remake of a violent scene on a staircase seems a little fake in a 1998 film, Psycho's message makes it through, and it's definitely one to show to your younger siblings (or whoever else) whose minds aren't open enough to watch a black and white movie.Did anybody really imagine Saul Bass' opening credits to be lime green like that though?
I love this movie because it was bold and I am a lot happier Van Sant didn't take the original 'Psycho' and make some kind of 90's slasher film.
They all felt like poor imitations of the originals, with one exception: Vince Vaughn acted like he was juggling between poorly imitating Norman Bates and Rain Man. Then there's the overall feeling of the film.
Gus van Sant is a good director in several films, but why he has to go in for remakes or rehashes is beyond me - especially talking about this masterpiece by Hitchcock.
I didn't think that director Gus Van Sant was doing a good thing, remaking Hitchcock's masterpiece and one of the greatest movies ever, but after seeing it opening night, I was amazed.
While on the way to meet up with him, she checks into a remote motel run by the mysterious and mother-dominated Norman Bates (Vince Vaughn).As the story and plot were the same in this remake as in the original, it is still a movie full of suspense, intrigue and excitement.
This remake wasn't filmed in black and white which I thought added to the mood of the original movie.