I knew it was going to be awful but not this awful!!, as it's one of the most boring movies i have ever seen, not a damn thing happens!. All the characters are dull, and the story is stupid and incredibly boring!,plus The ending is especially lame!. The only reason i rented this piece of crap because i am a big fan of Michael Dudikoff, however he is wasted here, and looks extremely bored and shows no emotion what so ever!, plus i cheered out loud when the movie was over!. It's like the movie had no plot and it was all about nothing, and Ice-T is god awful(even though he is OK in some stuff), plus Dudikoff and Yvette Nipar had no chemistry together at all. There's one scene that the director tried to make emotional but he fails miserably as Yvette Nipar didn't really show all that much emotion, however there is a decent Car chase scene, but that's not enough for me to recommend this god awful film!, plus the dialog is atrocious. Avoid this movie like the plague not a damn thing happens, please avoid and trust me on this one you may thank me afterwords. The Direction is horrible!. Fred Olen Ray does a horrible job here, with shoddy camera work, laughably cheap looking set pieces, terrible angles, laughable use of stock footage, and keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is terrible!. Michael Dudikoff is nowhere near his usual amazing self, he looks extremely bored, and shows no emotion what so ever, his character is also extremely dull, as i can't believe he signed on for this piece of garbage, he also had no chemistry with Yvette Nipar(Dudikoff still rules!!!). Ice-T has barely anything to do and also looks bored, and he didn't convince me one bit. Hannes Jaenicke is not very good here, he had somewhat of a wimpy character, i didn't like him. Yvette Nipar is pretty but was really terrible here, she didn't show much emotion, and had no chemistry with Dudikoff, and as a result i didn't give a damn about her character!. Art Hindle,(Owen Marsh),Kathy Harren(Katharine Marsh), and the rest of the cast are bad as well. Overall Please avoid like the plague!, Fred Olen Ray and Steve Lathshaw should be ashamed of themselves!. BOMB out of 5


I rented this movie because I am a huge Dudikoff fan. I figured it couldn't be that bad. Boy was I wrong! At the 15 minute mark , I was begiing the others to let me rip the DVD out and fling it back to the rental store, but they refused. They swore it had to get better.

They were wrong! This movie was lacking everything. The actors delivered their lines with as much emotion as a comatose rock! The plot was ridiculous and I was offended that Hollywood assumed people were dumb enough to enjoy it. None of the characters interacted very well with each other. Ice-T gives one of his worst performances here.

After watching footage of the wrong plane, bad guys standing up to get shot, and clips being emptied and missing everything, I wanted to scream and bang my head on concrete. The movie hit its plateau of ignorance when the people on the space station used an elevator to travel. Space suits are not needed and there is gravity in space regardless of what real astronauts may say.

I didn't finish this movie and hated it. I don't want to finish this movie. This is slow suicide. I could feel my cerebral cortex planning to avenge the torture I put it through.


I really should have learned more about this movie before renting it. It was one of those movies where you keep watching it figuring it's got to get better. Then, when it ends, you feel stupid for having wasted precious time in your life that you can never get back. Ice-T did his bad guy thing and, well, that was the highlight of the evening. The pictures of the shuttle looks like it was done with a little toy inside of a box and the spacewalking scenes were funny because you could see the strings attached to the space suits. The script was lacking and the car chase scene with the guy bleeding and going unconscious was incredible because he drove better than I could have on one of my best days. All in all, I have seen worse but this sure isn't one I'd recommend or want to remember.


Rented this tonite from my local video store. It was titled "Black Horizon." I guess someone felt this was good enough for a 2004 re-release...

Micheal Dudikoff is unfortunetly not a ninja in this movie, one of the major flaws of this film right off the bat. Another major flaw would be that Ice-t's action scenes are stolen from other movies, particularly the first scene of his rescue, which is directly from the Wesley Snipes movie "The Art of War," with Ice-T edited in. I hope they paid for that footage.

The plot is awful, the special effects had little effort put into them (love those wires holding them in space), the acting is wooden (also love those New York/Russian accents). Ice-T being in the movie is pointless. These guys also forgot the fact that there is no gravity in space, but I guess they weren't worried about it.

Micheal Dudikoff should go back to doing what he's "good" at and make American Ninja 6.


Poorly acted, poorly written and poorly directed. Special effects are cheap. Best performance is by Yvette Napir, but that's not saying much. Story is a confusing mess about corporate greed leading to sabotage of a space station and an attempt to rescue those stranded aboard.

 There is little suspense and even less action. There's one car chase that's not bad, but the rest of the movie is simply a waste of everyone's time.


Ed Wood rides again. The fact that this movie was made should give any young

aspiring film maker hope. Any screenplay you might have thought of using to

line a litterbox or a birdcage should now not seem that bad. Do not watch this movie unless you have a healthy stash of Tylenol or Rolaids. Watching this

movie made me realize that Boa vs. Python was not that bad after all. It probably would have been better to do this movie in Claymation as at least that way no actor would have had to take credit for being in this film. It is understandable why this director has so many aliases. There is a bright side to watching this movie in that if you can get someone to bring you a bag of chips, then you can eat your way out of the cocoon of cheese that surrounds you enabling you to

make your toward your TV set's cocoon of cheese that surrounds it.


Nothing to watch here. It's all been done (and better) before. Who cares about this woman - deficient in every way - as a mother as a wife and as a friend? In one instant when she could have taken the high road - she jumped into re-addiction with both feet and held her breath - for no better a reason than "me, too!" If she wasn't the pretty and young person she portrays on screen - but looked more like the real human wreckage that is represented by our family members, neighbors and friends who really suffer from additions we'd change channels in a nanosecond.

This movie starts out at the bottom and goes downhill. Nothing redeeming, no lessons taught - nothing uplifting in any way. None of the main characters even evoke sympathy, let alone empathy. (Well, maybe the snake.) I would have had more fun if I'd shut a door on my hand. Who needs drivel like this?


What is it about drug addiction that so draws first-time filmmakers to offer their own take on the subject? This subject has been done to death. Drug abuse is bad. We get it. Drug addiction is painful to watch. We get that too. But the bleak subject matter doesn't give the filmmaker license to make a sloppy film. Every film need not be Hitchcockian masterpiece of cinematic excellence, or use Orson Wellesian deep focus, but it's still a narrative movie. Verite does not mean pseudo-documentary. Even consumer mini-DV cameras are capable of producing white whites and black blacks, and this filmmaker is just being lazy by shooting no contrast scenes with existing lighting: the subject is bleak enough without artificially forcing it with sloppy cinematography. And even documentary films have a sound mix. Vera Farmiga is very talented, given the right material, but the director obviously over-directed her and sucked all the life out of her performance. Addicts may live in a fog, but they still have emotions, but none of these characters seem to exist off-screen. The supporting players merely delivered their lines without creating real people. Sorry to be so harsh, Debra, but some things are true whether want to believe them or not. I'm sure your next film will be better -- but please, not another drug movie. :)


I saw this one at Sundance, and I can't figure out why it won the directing award. It was painfully slow and literally colorless. It's the type of movie that is only appreciated by film fest snobs who think any movie that a lot of people like must be beneath them.

The jury at Sundance this year seemed to be making a conscious effort to reward the underdog, ultra-low-budget films. That's all well and good, but this wandering, dragging mess looks like a home movie. Mini-DV shot in a snow-covered gray winter results in a drab look for a drab movie.

Certain motifs (snakes) are beaten to death in spite of the fact that they add nothing to the story and make no sense as symbols.

Now, it wasn't all bad. Vera Farmiga is phenomenal in her role as a mother with a drug problem. She will be going places, and she deserves it. Her co-star Hugh Dillon also does a fine job. Frankly, there are many fine moments in this movie, but they just don't fit together very well.


It's not often I give two stars to a horror movie because horror is my favorite genre. A movie can be BAD in that it isn't a masterpiece but can be enjoyable on the basis of unintentional humour, bizarre characters, etc. A case in point are a great number of horror/sci-fiction movies from the 1940s to 1980s era. They are enjoyable for genre-buffs and guilty-pleasure seekers because their "badness" is entertaining. However, this movie has none of the humour or effective gory scenes of the "Piranha" (1978) original.

I suppose in 1995 it was the heyday of political correctness so gore on TV was at a minimum. Now in the mid-2000s with the C.S.I. shows, TV's an absolute blood-fest! (Good for us horror fans!)

William Katt and Alexandra Paul are no Bradford Dillman and Heather Menzies (the original 1978 stars.) It's not Katt's and Paul's faults but the writers and director who created this tepid turkey. How the main characters interact is the main flaw of this movie. I won't say how because that is part of the plot.

This TV movie probably had a bigger budget than the original but flopped as good horror, as can be seen from the user votes here. Stick with the 1978 original if you're in the mood for a killer-fish movie!


Well, i thought the movie was blah 1/10.

anyways the best part is the first 5 minutes of the film with the nerd's or whatever girlfriend, this is the part u guys watch out for Tho she had big hooters, i thought is that really a random actor? Heck no, it wasn't it was actually a model by the name of Larissa McComas but u already knew that

So, that made sense but that was about it rest of the film (that i saw anyway) didn't care 4, and didn't bother watching the rest of it That's

all i needed to C to be satisfied so 2 those of u that just care for that well there u go enjoy


I guess my biggest mistake was to watch this remake of '95 "Piranha" back-to-back with Joe Dante's '78 original. I did the same last week with "The Omen". Curiously enough, watching the remake right after the '76 original, really made me appreciate the 2006 version quite a bit for various reasons.

But this approach sort of backfired on the '95 Piranha version. It enhanced the fact that it really is a lesser picture. Basically, the '95 version is more or less the exact same film, as it tells the same story and follows it practically scene-by-scene (only Barabara Steele's character and the military intervention were written out of it). But the cinematography wasn't as good. The acting was worse too. Especially Alexandra Paul (playing Heather Menzies' character) showed me again what a horrible actress she is. Bradford Dillman (from the '78 version) had his Charlton Heston way of acting going, which was amusing, while in the '95 version William Katt does a good job at being William Katt. So I didn't mind him, really. But the whole cast is pretty much inferior and the only worthwhile event was spotting James Karen ("Return of the Living Dead", parts 1 & 2) in a cameo. John Carl Buechler's make-up effects aren't as neat as Rob Bottin's. The musical score had some ring to it, but Pino Donaggio's score was much more memorable in the original. So all these shortcomings really shone through with having just re-watched the original as part of this double bill.

Since Scott P. Levy's remake does follow Dante's original, I guess it is entertaining enough to sit through, though it's lacking the wit Dante's original had. But what really made me not like Levy's version very much, is the fact that quite a bit of stock footage from the first film was re-used during the piranha attack scenes. I never like it when filmmakers do this (and I'm not talking about using footage for flashbacks or other valid reasons). I mean, if you don't have the budget (or imagination) to come up with newly shot material, then for Pete's sake, don't do a frickin' remake. But Roger Corman produced this (cheaper) remake, so I guess I shouldn't be all that surprised about the re-use of footage.

If you do decide to watch "Piranha", then make sure it's been a while since you've seen the original. You might enjoy this remake a little more then. And oh yes, that cool little stop-motion creature from the original is nowhere to be found in this film, as to be expected. But what's worse, there also isn't any female nudity in this one (the original really had quite some titty-shots going for it, and that blonde girl from the opening-scene even accidentally pulled her underwear a bit down too far when removing her jeans!). Figures, as this '95 version was made for TV.


I think that this was one of the most trite films ever made. No redeeming features at all. Even my 12-year-old son said it was laughable. May be a good candidate for the next generation of "Mystery Science Theatre."


This movie is one of the worst remakes I have ever seen in my life! The acting is laughable and Corman has not improved his piranhas any since 1978. 90% of the special effects are lifted from Piranha (1978), Up From The Depths (1979) and Humanoids From The Deep (1979). It makes Piranha II: The Spawning look like it belongs on the American Film Institute List.


If you can stomach the campiness, this movie should make you laugh out loud several times. It did for me, at least. I'll only mention one of my favorite elements: the "underwater shots" of the "fish" "swimming". The sound which accompanies those shots is great too.

One last note: William Katt is actually a pretty decent actor. I hope he gets another day in the sun; watching him as "The Greatest American Hero" was a fun part of my childhood a couple of decades ago, and he hasn't been very visible since. He seemed kind of depressed in this movie. Somebody give him a fun job on a good show, or something.


There are interesting pieces here of and about Bruce Weber's likes and dislikes. Maybe if a professional editor had put it together for Biography, I would have felt more satisfied. Instead, I spent $8 at a film festival on it. For an autobiography, almost nothing is revealed about Bruce Weber, other than he likes to look at photographs, shoot interesting people, especially beautiful teenage boys, and listen to jazz. The director of "Crumb" would have made a much more interesting and cohesive film.


This movie is essentially a "how-to" on how to be a well-connected pedophile. I'm amazed that so many people-- especially other gay men-- have seen this movie and read the book and no one has brought up the fact that if Weber was not an influential photographer, he would be in jail, doing time for child abuse. Poor Peter Johnson. Weber took this poor, naive (although incredibly handsome) teenager whom he found at a training camp for high school wrestlers in the Midwest, brought him to live in his home, and took thousands of homoerotic photos of him, many of them full-frontal nudes, all through Johnson's teenage years. That ain't art. It's child abuse. And what's worse, Weber made lots of money off of it, and poor Johnson is going to have serious "issues" the rest of his life. Weber's lecherous love of the boy is downright creepy, as are his ramblings about famous (and not so famous) people he's known, as he tries to complete Johnson's "education." Creepy, and then just plain boring. The only redeeming thing I can say about the movie is that it is a fascinating study of self-deception. But I can't help but wonder why no one ever considered the effect this was having on "Chop Suey" (Weber's nickname for Johnson) himself.


If you're looking for an accurate portrayal of Che Guevara, the Cuban revolutionary who helped aid Fidel Castro in his bid for power, you'd better read up on Cuban history or even type in his name on a search engine (you ARE on the Internet, after all).

But whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH "CHE!".

Unless, of course, you just want a good laugh.

All the reviewers of the time (and moviegoers) gave "Che!" their vote for worst film of the decade. And no wonder; have you seen this travesty? Its facts are tenuous at best, Sharif is even unconvincing as a corpse and as for Palance's Fidel Catsro imitation....

Like I said, if you want a good laugh.

It's like watching a co-production between The Learning Channel and Mad Magazine.

One star.

I wonder if Palance can do W. C. Fields, too?


35 years after this was made, Castro still reigns. Unfortunately, we're left scratching our heads wondering how the dim-witted maniac played by scenery-chewing Jack Palance made it as far as 1960. I stumbled back across this recently, and was amused at noticing the incomparable Sid Haig and "B" movie favorite Paul (Untouchables) Picerni among the rebels. Fleischer was obviously well past his prime when he directed this foolishness. Some of the lines are classic in a "Did he really say that kind of way?' The other thing I just noticed is that the score and the sound (NOT the dialog) are actually excellent -- the only first-rate elements of the entire production. So, don't watch this to learn anything about history or acting, but if you feel like watching this as a goof, bring the beers and have some fun.


The few scenes that actually attempt a depiction of revolutionary struggle resemble a hirsute Boy Scout troop meandering tentatively between swimming holes. When Sharif or, please God, Palance try their hand at fiery oratory, they sound like Kurtz swallowing a bug. The displays of strategic brilliance incorporate a map of Cuba replete with smiling fishies in the ocean, and a positively Vaudevillian hypothesis on how the Bay of Pigs came to pass. What does that leave us with? One comical dentistry scene; a surfeit of uppity Hollywood peasants who address the camera as though it were a moving train; and, just for kicks, a passel of homoeroticism that is not limited to Castro's manic and unremitting cigar-fellatio. Never trust a Medved, but even a busted clock is right twice a day: this is a HISTORICALLY awful movie.


CHE! is a bad movie and deserves it reputation as an unintentionally funny film. It takes a serious subject and presents it like the Cliff Notes version or Classic Comics because there isn't much emotion or a proper narrative--just episodic segments stitched together with mostly stupid "true stories" relayed by a variety of yutzes.

This is a deservedly derided film, as it is poorly written and acted. However, what I have found most interesting about the film is its apparent gay subtext. Instead of Che Guevarra and Fidel Castro working towards a Communist Cuba, they seem to be more of a gay couple--with Che behaving coy and aloof and Fidel as the ardent suitor! Again and again, the film abounds with great lines such as when Fidel implores Che "Cuba needs you....I NEED YOU!!". I am not sure if the studio intended this homosexual undercurrent, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to recognize it! I am very surprised that the other reviewers didn't point this out. However, if you remember this when you watch the film, it makes viewing much more exciting and even funnier.

A final note. In recent years, Che has been very chic--even a fashion statement with hoards of brain-dead teens, who have no idea who he was, wearing shirts emblazoned with his face. Considering he was a cold-blooded killer and nihilist (an odd combination for a doctor), this new reverence for the man is gross. What will they do next, put Hitler or Dr. Mengele on T-shirts and posters?!!? Even Communists with consciences should be appalled by the bloodshed Guevara was responsible for and I find it ironic that people with computers are championing a man who might likely have killed them given half a chance!

Considering how stupid and unintentionally funny this movie was, it does nothing to further the message that Guevara was no hero. I would love to see a realistic film done of his life--with the good and the bad but also with dialog and a plot that weren't apparently created by chimps!


You can't really blame the movie maker for glorifying Che because the industry is all about money. Most of the stories you hear about this "freedom fighter" are absolute tripe fabricated by the communist Cuban government after Che's death. Che was a murdering scumbag from day one. Here's a list of the great things Che did for Cuba 1) Executed thousands of innocent Cuban Men, Women, AND CHILDREN to satisfy his lust for power.

2) Destroyed Cuba's economy and good standing with the rest of the world. The Cuban peso used to be equal with the American dollar. Now it's basically worthless.

3) Continually failed at all things that involved diplomacy, economy, and the military. He never made it past his first year in Medical School, and he was only in one real battle, in which he surrendered with a fully loaded gun.

4) He took over the largest estate in Cuba to set up for himself. He had a Yacht, a 60" custom made TV from America, a swimming pool, and a view of the Ocean. So much for shunning the materialist life style.

Cuba today is an absolutely destitute country, and you have no one but Che and the Castro brothers to thank for it. If you go to Cuba today you will not be allowed out of the tourist areas. If you did manage to get out of what you're meant to see, you would find slums, beggars, and prostitutes.

If you think any of what I'm saying is untrue then go do some studying. Compare Cuban exports from 1950/60 to those of today; talk with people who survived or who had parents in the so called Cuban "revolution" of the 1960's; read all of the reports of murdered innocents; read the reports from people who served under Che and Castro and fled because of what an evil, disgusting human being he was.

And please, please, always remember to read or watch EVERYTHING objectively. Stop taking everything at face value and THINK ABOUT IT.


This movie really starts strong. We know that Roberts is an Atlanta hotshot sent to Australia to fix Coke's marketing problems. We also know he is an eccentric genius. Roberts' fine acting convinces us of this rather quickly.

Unfortunately, the plot is so flimsy, that whatever fine character development has been achieved, it is negated by voids, inconsistencies, and downright boring film sequences.

Usually, I am a sucker for bold and far out plots. Examples which I am fond of include, "Dark Star," "O.C. & Stiggs," and "Popeye." Coupled with the fact that I must admit that this film was well acted, it surprises even myself that I cannot recommend this film.

The utter breakdown in this movie occurs about midway through the film. All comedy is instantly lost and the film turns dark. Afterwards, the film plods along. The film's attempt to get the comedy rolling again is not successful. More surprises await the viewer and they are darker still.

To be sure, mixing drama with comedy can be a formula for success. However, with this movie, the result is about as successful as "new coke."


At least the jingle by Tim Finn was melodic. Roberts is the his usual inept self. Characters are inconsistent, dull, purposeless. Roberts changes his accent even within one line.


Yes, why? Among the filmmakers that came out in the 80's and 90's Gus Van Sant is one of my idols. There are others, a few. Steven Sodebergh, PT Anderson, Tim Hunter, Danny Boyle, Martin Donovan, Harmony Korine, Wes Anderson. Idiosyncratic, infuriating some times, but consistent, surprising, unpredictable. Their names make me switch on the TV, go to a video store or even buy a ticket and go to a movie theater. Van Sant's "Psycho" however, gives me pause. Why? I wonder. A shot by shot massacre of one of the perennial classics. The color was jarring, the performances, atrocious. What was Vince Vaughn doing? Was it a parody? A bad joke? What the hell was it? Anne Heche as Janet Leigh? Who dressed her? Viggo Mortensen with a cowboy hat. Viggo is a superb actor but in this case he couldn't make us forget John Gavin and if Julianne Moore had been introduced to the world through this performance there wouldn't have been any "The Hours" for her, "The Minutes" maybe. So, here I am, bad mouthing the work of one of my idols. The crashing question remains: Why, Mr. Van Sant? Maybe, in the words of President Clinton, because he could. I'm afraid that's no excuse.


This is, per se, an above average film but why in the name of Bog was it made? It's impossible to treat it as a thing unto itself because it is an almost shot-for-shot remake of an Alfred Hitchcock classic of 1960. You can't watch it without the 1960 film nudging into your consciousness.

What does the word "credit" mean? How can we credit Van Sandt and his associates with anything except deciding to use different actors, slightly different sets, and color?

Anne Heche is attractive but lacks Janet Leigh's stolid determination to become a respectable middle-class woman. And Heche is younger than Leigh, who brought to her fruitless attempt to marry and settle down, the desperation of a woman facing forty. And Heche doesn't project anxiety the way Leigh did. The scene with the CHP officer looking in her car window illustrates the weakness in the role. In the original, the officer asks, "Is there something wrong?" Leigh: "Of course not. Am I acting as if something were wrong?" The officer hesitates before replying: "Well, frankly, yes." That exchange is omitted from the remake for the simple reason that Heche isn't nervous enough.

The worst change, without a doubt, is the substitution of Vince Vaughn for Anthony Perkins. It may not be Vaughn's fault. Who could match Perkins in the role? Perkins is twitchy, bird-like, long-necked, cloaked in an externally charming exterior that masks an inner vacuum. His every move (eating candy corn, with his adam's apple bobbing) and every utterance, the faint laugh, the arid chuckle, is spot on. He just can't be improved upon. Vaughn brings to the role the presence of a short-haired beefy guy who was just discharged as a Lance Corporal from the U. S. Army. To suggest his psychosis all he can do is superimpose a maniacal giggle on top of what appears otherwise a perfectly normal Norman in speech and manner. (Unlike the original Norman, Vaughn doesn't even stumble over the word "fallacy" because it resembles "phallus".) He could be just hanging around the motel waiting to hear about his application for a football scholarship to UCLA.

The direction deserves a few comments. I don't see what it adds to the story when we see Norman masturbating while peeping in on Anne Heche. I don't OBJECT to it. I wonder why it's there, just as I wonder why the rest of the movie is there.

And, I suppose in order to impress us with how much color adds to the visual experience, Van Sant seems to have missed a bit of Hitchcock's more subtle stuff. Heche is given underwear of all different colors -- green, pink, orange, and -- mango? Is that a color? If so, what the hell color is it? Never mind. The point is that in the original, when the traveling camera first peeks through the window of the Phoenix hotel it captures Janet Leigh in bed wearing a pure white half slip and a white bra. Later, after she has stolen the money, we see her in her underwear again -- this time both her slip and bra are black. Tis a small thing, but Hitch's own.

At that, the idea of shooting in color might not have been bad except that the black-and-white shooting of the original was superb. The color and odd lighting effects in this version turn the ordinary, dull, and subliminally ominous motel into something that looks like it belongs in the seedier part of Las Vegas.

Most of all, the 1960 film was shocking in more ways than one. I can remember seeing it in a drive-in in San Diego and staring aghast at the screen when it became clear that the central character was actually DEAD -- half-way through the movie! Nothing like it had ever been done before.

That murder in the shower, in both movies, was a big improvement over Robert Bloch's original novel, by the way, in which the author writes something like, "The murderer then entered the bathroom and cut off her head with a knife." I'm not making that up. Well, not entirely. Even here, Van Sant's movie gives us excess. There is more blood and more bare flesh. And where Hitchcock closed in first on the blood circling the bathtub drain and dissolved to Marian's blankly open eye, then pulled the camera back slowly to reveal her face, he rotated his camera from a slight tilt to the proper vertical, giving the viewer a sense of not just disbelief at the murder, but a dizzying disbelief. Van Sant doesn't tilt his camera a delicate 10 or 20 degrees as Hitchcock did. He practically twirls it on its axis.

It won't do to call this a bow to Hitchcock because it's not. It's a pecuniary plundering of Hitchcock's material (already ripped off in "Psycho" I, II, III, IV, and "Psycho: The Beginning Years", and "Come Into My Parlor: Mrs. Bates' Revenge," and "Hand Me That Knife, Would You?: The TRUE story of Norman Bates.") A rehashing of and grinding away at truly original stuff, a crumenal act if not a criminal one. And that's not to mention the many homages in other films, especially the French, such as the notorious "ocean of boredom" scenes between Marcel Brulee and Jeanne Gateau in the much-admired "La Mere de la Nuit." (Maybe I'd better add that that last sentence is a terrible attempt at a parody of academic critics. And when a chicken's guts grind corn, it's a "crumenal" act. I won't go on except to say these gags, shabby as they are, are more fun than the movie.)

So who was it made for? I'd have to guess. Kids who are too young to know about the original and who don't like movies in black and white? Kids who are hoping to see another ordinary slasher movie? Chimpanzees?


I know curiosity killed the cat, but I simply had to see the remake of Psycho, especially after being on such a Hitchcok journey recently and knowing his work. I've watched the original Psycho though since I was a kid, I knew how to respect it and not only that, it was an excellent movie! One of the best, in fact! The first thing I said when I heard about the remake was "How do you remake perfection?". I stuck to that as well, but I think I have a more open mind now and figured maybe it was a way of introducing Psycho to a new generation.

But this turned into a total insult and slap to the face of the original Psycho. 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"... what's the friggin' point?! OK, but I want to judge this movie on it's own, despite it's insulting blows 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. Vince Vaughn didn't make... let's just put it this way, the film was horribly miscasted. This was a sin against film and on it's own, this was actually a bad movie. It was too much and destroyed what could've been a new introduction for a new generation. But to Gus, leave the film making the one's who KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING!

1/10


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. If the film was a re-working or, as in Planet of the Apes, a re-imagining of the original you would be able to look at the film in it's own right, only referencing the original. Imagine it this way, if someone took the model in the 'Mona Lisa', posed her in a different way, and painted her you could only compare the framing,concept etc to the original but if someone just repainted her in the position of the original you would have to compare it totally.

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. It's nothing to do with wether they acted better or not it's that the relationship between Norman and Marion in the original was really quite innocent, Norman didn't really understand sex, he had hardly any contact with the outside world and when he meets beautiful Marion and watches her change you feel that he is partly doing it from fascination as he doesn't really understand sex and his attraction to her,this makes Norman sympathetic and almost an anti-hero, you are on his side because he doesn't fully understand the world and is constantly fighting with himself and his 'Mother'. 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. It destroys a character that we have come to like and feel sorry for, it's like re-making 'It's a wonderful life' and having the main character a pimp, totally degrading.

The only other character that I had problems with was Rita Wilson as Caroline, Marion's workmate. 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. This also made the film more atmospheric and frightening in it's own way and it gave it a beauty that could never be captured in colour and it is a sad statement about how movies are de-sensetising the public that people have said how the shower scene was more frightening in colour. (n.b before people think 'he can't spell' remember I'm from England and we spell it colour)

A remake should be just that, re made, this is a forgery, a complete copy and a very bad one at that. I could go on comparing but there is no point, almost everything is superior in the original. The only one thing that is better is the performance of Viggo Mortensen as Sam Loomis, John Gavin was very flat in the original (Hitch called him 'The Stiff' behind his back) and Mortensen gives a more believable if less likeable performance. William H. Macy and Julianne Moore are the only other actors that hold up to the originals.

Overall a movie that should be labeled 'Expensive Embarrassing Failed Experiment. Only view if comparing to original or if original is unknown to you. But view original too' The movie would have got a 3 out of 5 if it were original or a reworking but as it is 0.5 out of 5 (for Macy, Moore and Mortensen)


Hitchcock's original classic benefited tremendously not only from the performance of, but also the 'look' of Anthony Perkins. He projected a kind of clean-cut innocence: a young teen-idol type of persona. He was not an actor who had portrayed baddies before this; nor was he physically suited to the role of what the public might have imagined a psychopath to look like, especially in the 50's when this ultra-chilling aspect of mental illness (split personality psychosis) was relatively unexplored in film. Which is exactly why the casting of him as Norman Bates was a slice of true Hitchcockian genius. Audiences were taken by surprise to put it mildly.

That's why this re-make does not work, even a little bit, in spite of trying to be an exact copy. Whereas Anthony Perkins looked like someone you would never think of as being a serial killer, Vince Vaughn is easily imaginable as one. He lacks the frail look of Perkins and his acting chops are clearly inferior as well, at least in this role (honestly - has there ever been an actor who could convey nervousness as genuinely as Anthony Perkins?). 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. As for viewers who can't watch black and white - it's their loss. Hopefully they'll mature sometime in the future and no longer require shiny colours to hold their attention. When they do they'll discover that sometimes black and white works far better. With the background muted, the story and performances are that much more front and center. And in many cases the mood or atmosphere created through black and white cinematography is just not attainable in colour.


I know that the original Psycho was a classic and remaking it was a mistake, ESPECIALLY a shot-by-shot remake. I think that that has been more or less proven by the rest of the comments here. But there's far more wrong with this movie than just that.

The first problem is the color. The original film was shot in black and white but, what few people realize is, the original was shot AFTER color film had been invented. The choice of black and white film was partially a budget concern, but it was also a stylistic choice of Hitchcock's. Now, this is not to say that the remake should have been redone in black and white, but the colors of this movie are all too wrong. The most predominant colors in the film are orange and green, particularly on Marion who is not supposed to be a flashy character. The bright colors make it look like a happy movie and, when horrific events take place in these color schemes, it looks like a cartoon more than anything and the audience is inclined to laugh rather than scream.

The second problem is the lighting. This is a dark dark tale which should be highlighted by dim lighting, but this remake seemed not only to fail in this but seemed to go in the OPPOSITE direction. Most of the scenes are very brightly lit, even at times when it is illogical to do so because it's at NIGHT!

Another obvious problem is Vince Vaughn's performance. Yes, he does pull off Norman Bate's awkwardness and madness quite well, I don't deny him that. But there is one element to the character that he failed to show: the softness. There should be a certain deceptive friendliness to the character, at least at first, which then fades away once we realize the truth about him. Beyond being a character trait of Norman Bates, this is a recognized character trait of ALL PSYCHOPATHS!!!!

There are a few good aspects of this film. Some of the performances are great. As I said, Vince Vaughn came very close to pulling off a decent portrayal of Norman Bates. Viggo Mortensen and Juliane Moore were great together and their chemistry was very different from the characters in the original, which was a welcome change. 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. I now wish that I had bought that book and saved the comment because, after seeing this film, that comment is quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever seen. There was no attempt in this film to disguise the fact that it was a rip off of the original, and it would be far more believable if Van Sant had tried to tell us that he was really a three ton ape from the planet Zafroomulax. So many shots were copied exactly without any actual thought as to why Hitchcock had composed the original shot in that way. Such as the scene in which Sam and Lila are talking while their faces are entirely covered in shadow. Hitchcock covered these actors' faces in shadow because he thought they were bad actors and wanted to hide their faces so nobody could see their awful performances, not because of any artistic or stylistic purpose.

In other words, my review is about as pointless as the movie itself in that it replicates something that's already been said. Like everyone else here, I reccommend you don't waste your time on this film and get the original.


Well, I have to agree with the critics on this one, who all said "leave it alone." Why they had to make this re-make of the 1960 "Psycho," I don't know. My guess is they wanted to reach a new audience and thought color and modern-day actors were the answer, since those were the main changes. The dialog was the same and the story the same.

On one hand, I applaud them for not making this over with a lot of profanity and nudity and making it a sleazy film. 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? Are you kidding? Ann Heche, with her short mannish-haircut, is going to be better than Leigh? I don't think so!

Yes, the colors were pretty in here but it's the black-and-white photography that helped make the 1960 version so creepy to begin with. It's perfect for the story, not a bunch of greens and pinks! Once again, I guess the filmmakers were banking on an audience that never saw the original.

This was just a stupid project that never should have gotten off the ground.


The most disposable movie in the history of cinema?This one is a strong contender!Why wasting so much money for such a pointless useless work? 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.

No 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!


Let me begin by saying that this remade version of one of the greatest ever created movies "Psycho" (1960) has been nothing but a fine example of poor direction, poor acting and poor cast. The best way to describe this movie is by comparing it step by step, acting by acting and process by process to the original.

Alfred Hitchcock, one of the greatest movie directors ever lived, had an intention to shoot the original in black and white despite the availability of color at that time. Okay, people in 1960 may not have been used to bloodshed or horrifying scenes as much as we are today but that didn't prevent people from liking it and getting nominated for 4 Oscars. Gus Van Sant had absolutely no reason to release this in color except that the year was 1998. What should have looked realistic in color did not. After the shower scene Norman washes his hands it is easily comprehendible that whatever was used for blood looked like some kind of red wax. Once he washes off the blood his hand is red in color.

About acting, perhaps there couldn't have been a better cast of Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins in the original. Perkins suited well for Norman and he was incredibly natural when he smiles and talks to the stranger. Hitch wanted a handsome and good actor and it worked just fine. In this version, I personally think Vince Vaughn looked perfect and handsome and strong to play Norman's role, unfortunately his acting was nothing less than terrible. In the motel office where Norman and Marion have the long conversation, he had zero expression on his face and his voice and face never changes throughout. In the original in the same scene when the madhouse is described, we can clearly see the sudden change of expression on Perkins's face and he looks scaringly angry although not aggressively. Vince Vaughn here works out the entire conversation like he's just had his lines by heart. Again, terrible acting. Same is with Anne Heche. In the opening scene in the original, we can see how tensed and nervous Marion (Janet) is when she drives to Phoenix. She was happy in getting the money but at the same time scared for life. That's what I call acting. In the remake, Heche has no signs of fear and she smiles periodically for getting the money. I don't think anyone would be "happy and smiling" when they've just stolen $400000 and the entire state police is behind them. In the shower scene, Janet in the original grips the curtain, turns around and dies after getting stabbed. In the remake, Heche gets stabbed, turns around, then sways the other way, has a foolish expression on her face and manages to die with great effort. Again, terrible acting.

There are also some specially introduced changes in this movie from the original that seems to have nothing to do with the plot line and the ongoing situation. In the scene where Arbogast gets murdered, two scenes blink in between the stabs. One with a naked woman and the other with a sheep. Many people including myself aren't exactly sure whether the second scene showed a sheep or a cow or whatever it was. What on earth does a beast or a naked woman have to do with an investigator's murder! The changes were just inappropriate and unnecessary. There are a couple of changes in the ending scene as well.

Let me add some (and the only) positive points along with that. I felt Julianne Moore did her job well and played a good character of Lila. And William Macy acted well, that was almost exactly how Arbogast's character should have been played.

It is common man's knowledge that the purpose and intention of a movie remake is to make the present generation aware of a movie that has a good classic plot line, and to try and make it look better than the original. And if anything has happened here according to what I just said, it is directly the opposite. Unfortunately many people like me weren't impressed after watching this movie unless we came to know of the existence of an unforgettable original version.

Please do not watch this movie, it is nowhere near the original and the original will always remain one of the best ever created movies if not THE best.


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.


Don`t be fooled into thinking that this is a remake as in this years remake of THE TIME MACHINE is based on an earlier film . It`s not because this is a pointless re- film . That is the director has used the original camera script shot for shot similar to the " remake " of THE GET AWAY from a few years ago . The scenes are identical to the original , the dialogue is identical to the original , the camera angles are identical , no attempt whatsoever is made to embellish or restructure the original script ,( But with a director like Van Sant at the helm we should be thankful . He sure ain`t no Hitchcock ) in fact I might even be correct in saying the costumes might be the same because the private eye wears a pork pie hat. Didn`t they go out of fashion in the late 1960s ?

Bottom line:Avoid


OK, first of all, who in their right mind would remake Hitchcock and second, who would do it shot for shot? I admit I had no intention of ever watching this movie for that very reason. The original Psycho is one of my favorite films ever and this just seemed like a degrading photocopy of it. I did watch it because my girlfriend wanted to compare it to the original and we both agreed less than five minutes into this crap that it was awful. First, as mentioned, they did it shot for shot. Where's originality? Why remake a movie that is almost perfect EXACTLY the way it was done the first time? Why remake such a movie to begin with? If you ARE going to remake something, remake something that doesn't work and make it BETTER!

Second, they used the exact same script from the 1960 version. The dialog no longer works. It works fine and sounds perfect for the 1960 version, but seems odd and stilted coming out of modern actors. Why not update the dialog? Hitch didn't write the script, you could have rewritten.

This film had some very good talent and they were wasted by imitation of the original actors. The actor who played the car salesman seemed like he was just playing John Anderson's performance as the car salesman in the original. All the actors seemed like the only direction they were given was be the characters from the original movie. Vince Vaughn may have seemed a little creepier than Anthony Perkins, but in doing so, you loose the sympathy you are supposed to have for Norman. Having Norman masturbate while watching Marion undress was going too far and lost the innocence of the character that I think Tony Perkins captured so well in his performance. Viggo Mortensen's accent was annoying and Rita Wilson was far too old to play Caroline. Her lines came off as someone desperate rather than just young and fun like Patricia Hitchcock's performance.

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. Hitch wanted to open with 1 long shot going over Phoenix but couldn't at the time so he had to settle for a series of shots cross-dissolved together. This film fulfilled that vision with a helicopter shot going into the window of the hotel. After that, though the film became a worthless waste of celluloid.

If you are curious about how to destroy a wonderful film, watch this, but do NOT under any circumstances watch this BEFORE you watch the original. This is a faded photocopy of the original and should never have been green-lit. Stick to the master's film, not the imitation.


*some possible spoilers*

Of course this film could not be expected to be as good as the original, remakes rarely are. But, this remake of one of Hitchcock's greatest films, Psycho, could have been a lot better.

First of all, whoever cast the movie must have been psycho. I mean, Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates! What where they thinking?! Unlike the "harmless", almost childlike Bates that Anthony Perkins was able to portray, Vaughn looks like he would could be a murderer. In efforts to make his Bates seem innocent, Vaughn ends up acting gay. Many of the other actors didn't seem to fit their parts either, including Julianne Moore who just didn't seem to fit in the film.

On top of the atrocious casting, the cinematography is notably shabby, despite the fact that they remade the film scene for scene. The one thing they added were random shots of object such as clouds or a nude woman, in between the shots of characters being murdered. These shots seemed to be irrelevant to the plot in anyway, and in turn made no sense.

Overall, this Psycho remake, which could been a decent picture, instead turned out to be a complete waste of time.


Not only Why? But "What were they thinking?" This must have been some

sort of payback to Gus Van Sant, because this is one of those odd movies

that never should have been (re) made. It purports to be Hitchcocks film

frame by frame, but without the magic or the tension or the great film

making. Rent the original instead, spare yourself.


A horrendous film, ill-conceived and crude. 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. There was no reason to make this picture, which only highlights how accomplished and brilliant Hitchcock was, and how inimitable. Also, there's a creeping, pervasive insensitivity in the film that isn't there in the first film. Hitchcock's Psycho was scary and shocking, but one could genuinely feel for all concerned, even the pitiful Norman Bates. There were moments of pathos, irony and fey humor the remake doesn't have. One of the best things about Hitchcock's film was its incredible and intuitive depth and sense of nuance, of when to cut away and when to show something, on whether to use a close-up or long shot, on whether to make an actor sympathetic and when to make him frightening, and so forth. The remake has none of these qualities and doesn't even try for them. It's an idiotic exercise that I'm amazed even got released.


Van Sant copies Hitchcock's masterpiece shot for shot including some modern facets: a walkman, and nudity from Anne Heche. Unless you have a strong desire to see Ms. Heche naked there is absolutely NO reason to see this film instead of the original. 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. Ask Janet Leigh about that one. The acting is also much flatter and the technical aspects much less impressive.


What an embarassment...This doesnt do justice to the original with awful acting from everyone in this movie, Hitchcock must be spinning in his grave. The scence where Marion gets killed in the shower is just so uneffective and unoriginal. The only good bit is that they used the same music and its so obvious who kills her in the shower. I rate this movie 3/10


*SPOILERS INCLUDED*

Alfred Hitchcock's brilliant and innovative adaptation of Robert Bloch's novel was an amazing film, unlike anything previous. Every shot, every camera angle, every nuance was PERFECT. He didn't just break the rules, he made up a whole set of new ones.

Here's the spoiler: there is absolutely nothing new, different, or original about this movie. Gus Van Sant doesn't just pay a homage to Hitch, he rips off every idea, and does so in a less original, more conventional manner. I didn't have anything against Gus Van Sant before I saw this movie. I liked Drugstore Cowboy and I thought My Own Private Idaho was a very interesting film. The question burning in my mind when it comes to the remake of Psycho is, "Why did you do it, Gus?"

In my mind, there are only two reasons to do a remake: 1) The original was a good story, but the movie sucked. 2) The original was a good movie, but someone has thought of a fresh, new approach to the material. Neither one of these factors is at all present in the Gus Van Sant version of Psycho. Apart from the fact that it is in color, and there is one scene in which there is a montage of disturbing imagery relating to the title character's possible inner dialogue (which I found unnecessary), there is nothing new here.

Furthermore, I found the casting left something to be desired. Anne Heche was okay as Marion, but she lacked a certain vulnerability that Janet Leigh portrayed in the original. I didn't feel as sympathetic towards her character, because the choices she faced seemed far less constrained as a woman in today's society, as opposed to the choices she would have faced as a single woman living in the early 1960's. Vince Vaughn got a few laughs with his rendering of an incredibly naive Norman Bates, but I feel that Anthony Perkins' timing and nervous, haunted look was much more effectively creepy. The only performance that I enjoyed better than the original was the character of Lila Crane, played by Jullianne Moore. She was excellent as usual, and brought a new strength and intelligence to the character.

To be fair, there is some beautiful camera work, especially during the famous "bathroom scene" in which Van Sant takes advantage of his use of color to show the murder in vibrant shades of crimson. And yet, during the whole film I had this irritating sense of deju vu. Haven't I seen this somewhere before? Oh wait, I HAVE seen this somewhere before! Nearly every scene seems to be copied shot for shot from the original. One almost gets the feeling the director made this film as a school project. "See, I can make a Hitchcock film, too!"

If you haven't already, go see the original. It's held up over the years, and beats this bit of mediocrity, hands down. You won't be disappointed.


A remake of a successful movie can be a tricky business at best; to remake a true classic, especially one that is veritably the definitive film of a director like Alfred Hitchcock, is something else again. And after watching this version of `Psycho,' directed by Gus Van Sant, two things come to mind immediately: What's the point, and what on earth were they thinking? Especially in light of the fact that Van Sant used the same screenplay (by Joseph Stefano, taken from the novel by Robert Bloch) that Hitchcock used. The final result here underscores some of the finer points of the art of filmmaking: First, that a `remake' should be just that; a retooling of the original, rather than a `copy' using new players; and second, that shooting in color, using more blood and being a bit more graphic does little more than detract from the impact of the film. Although this was a noble effort by Van Sant, ironically in the end it suffers from the same flaw with which Norma Bates was afflicted: The `mind' of the film was divided; half was Hitchcock, half Van Sant. And the twain, though met, shall never be bound. Van Sant, even working from the original script, would have been better off making his own film-- all the way through-- rather than attempting to duplicate exactly what Hitchcock did with certain scenes. The opening shot of the movie, for instance, and especially the `shower' scene, arguably one of the most famous scenes in the history of the cinema. Copying Hitchcock, from the shots looking directly into the shower head to the one of the drain, and using the same `skree! skree! skree!' sound effects-- even as homage to Hitchcock-- again, only distracted from the story. And, if you factor in the performance of William H. Macy (as Private Eye Arbogast), you have yet another split in the psyche of the film. Macy is a terrific actor-- one of the best character actors in the business-- and his performance here is excellent; but as good as it is, the attitude and delivery are pure David Mamet (with whom he has worked many times), and seemingly out of context with what Van Sant is doing. So the film winds up with a triple personality disorder: Hitchcock, Van Sant and Mamet. I felt like I was watching `House Of Good Will Psycho Games.'

	As far as performances go, Macy's was as solid as they come, and Anne Heche (Marion Crane) did a good job of creating an original character, escaping the trap of attempting an imitation of Janet Leigh. The weak links were Viggo Mortensen (Sam), who made Marion's boyfriend so smarmy and unappealing it made you wonder why she had anything to do with him in the first place; and Vince Vaughn, who--to put it as delicately as possible-- was simply awful as Norman Bates. His whole performance was that of an actor playing a role (and not very convincingly at that); affecting effeminate mannerisms and punctuating his speech with `spontaneous' bursts of maniacal laughter made his Norman more of a caricature than a character, altogether unbelievable and pretentious. It gave the movie the feel of a reenactment of a `True Incident' you would see on a television show; it would have been entirely in keeping with the sensibility of the film to cut away from Norman sitting alone in his parlor to a shot of a sober-faced Peter Graves, intoning, `Such was the mind-set of Norman Bates on that fateful, rainy night when Marion Crane stepped out of her car and into his life--' The supporting cast includes Julianne Moore (Lila), Robert Forster (Dr. Simon), Philip Baker Hall (Sheriff Al Chambers), Anne Haney (Mrs. Chambers), Chad Everett (Tom Cassidy), Rance Howard (Mr. Lowery), Rita Wilson (Caroline), James Remar (Patrolman) and James LeGros (Charlie the Car Dealer). If nothing else, Van Sant's `Psycho' is a curiosity that goes to show that having a good director, a predominantly excellent cast and a script that is a proven commodity does not necessarily insure a success. Granted, todays era of psycho-babble, `American Psycho' and Hannibal Lecter have effectively taken the edge off of a character like Norman Bates somewhat; but there is still a singular intimacy in this particular story of the relationship between Norman, his mother and his victims that will forever remain inherently disturbing and terrifying; but Van Sant is unable to convey that sense of dread, that throat-clenching fear, with this film. If ever there was a movie made that should have been earmarked straight-to-video, this is it. Better still, had it never been born. I rate this one 2/10


This is one of the dumbest ideas for a movie. Remake a classic film shot-by-shot. I hope nobody tries this technique again. In 1998, "Good Will Hunting" director Gus Van Sant tried it by remaking Hitchcock's 1960 classic "Psycho" and failed miserably. What on earth was Van Sant thinking of? This remake doesn't even come close to topping the original. The few changes that were made here were no help. If you want to see "Psycho", the choice is obvious. See the original.

* (out of four)


The 1998 version of "Psycho" needed to be set back in the 60's, rather than present day. The headliners would have done a good job with the setting. There were two scenes that just stuck out like a sore thumb. The first one was at the beginning of the movie when Marian Crane (Anne Heche) was sitting at her desk. Her boss took his client into his office because "it was air conditioning." I imagine that the majority of Arizona businesses have air conditioning. The other was the meeting of Lila Crane (Julianne Moore) & Sam Loomis (Viggo Mortensen). Lila sporting the Walkman seemed like an exaggeration to update the movie. The movie did spook a number of the viewers in the theater.


Norm(an)ally I don't mind remakes. There are some pretty good ones out there, BUT this one is a stinker! Considering it was practically scene for scene, it had a good story and great actors. Van Sant copied Al's direction virtually flawlessly, and it added color (I'm not one of those who think it has to be B&W to be classic). It should have been at least a mediocre movie... but it was pee-pee caa-caa! I don't understand how it could have been screwed up so badly. If you must, watch it as a curiosity, but I would suggest that you not bother.


Okay, so Gus Van Sant wanted to remake Psycho in color so that he could bring it into modern audiences, who would probably go into cardiac arrest if they were ever forced to see a movie in black & white, while they conveniently forget that both "Clerks" and "Schindler's List" were filmed in black & white and are great movies.

Unfortunately, the same narrow-minded people who wouldn't want to see a great movie just because it's in black & white are the same people who wouldn't like "Psycho" anyway, because it doesn't have a murder or sex scene every two minutes. And the murders are not the grisly blood/guts/gore/bone-snapping that people are used to from having seen "Halloween," "Friday the 13th" and "Nightmare on Elm Street." This is why remaking "Psycho" almost exactly as it was originally was destined to not work, because it's really only of interest to people who are fans of the original. Everyone else is just watching it to tide them over until the next "Scream" sequel comes out, and for that reason, they will be disappointed. "Psycho" relies on suspense and mystery, not blood and guts. (And just so nobody thinks that I must be a senior citizen if I like older movies, let me set the record straight by saying that I am 21.)

So if doing the movie in color was all that Van Sant wanted to change, why not just colorize the movie and rerelease it? I mean, what's the point of remaking a movie if you're not going to change *anything*? The least he could have done was to put his own director's spin on it, rather than just copying Hitchcock's - or even better, hired a new writer to adapt a new script from the original "Psycho" book. But it seems that Van Sant couldn't decide whether he wanted to remake "Psycho" *exactly* or not. This should have been an all or nothing project - either remake the movie exactly or do it differently - but as it stands, this movie is about 95% the same, but with a few touches thrown in that don't seem to have any purpose. Such as having Norman masturbate while he spies on Marion undressing. It doesn't serve the plot at all, and the only reason he put it in was because he *could*. He wanted to say, "Hitch couldn't show people masturbating in 1960 so I'm going to do it." Whoopee, big deal, like I'm so shocked at seeing someone masturbate. And what on earth was the point of showing single frame shots of clouds and farm animals spliced into the murder scenes? And then he leaves *out* an important scene, where Lila and Sam meet the Sheriff outside the church.

Plus, by using the almost exact same script, the entire movie seems a bit of an anachronism. The opening credits say that the year is 1998. Then what's with Marion's 60-ish looking dress or the parasol she carries with her? Why do Marion and Sam have to have their trysts in a hotel room, when these days nobody would be shocked by what they are doing? Why are there no air conditioners in Marion's office? Why does the Bates Motel have no tv's in the rooms, and apparently no automatic locks on the doors? Why does the Sheriff have to ask the operator to connect him to the Bates motel? This was why using the exact same script was a mistake - just changing a few words here and there was not enough to modernize it. It needed a whole reworking.

While Vince Vaughn turned in a good performance as Norman, he just didn't seem right for the part. Part of what made the original "Psycho" so creepy was that Norman had that innocent, boy-next-door quality, so nobody could believe that he was capable of such horrible crimes. With Vince Vaughn playing the part, is anyone really surprised that Norman was a psychopathic killer?

That said, I can understand that Gus Van Sant was obviously a fan of the original "Psycho" movie, and wanted this to be a tribute. This isn't a bad movie, but the problem is that this may be some people's only exposure to "Psycho." I really think you should see this movie only if you've seen the original. Since I am a fan of anything to do with "Psycho," I bought a used copy of the remake, which I may watch occasionally. The original movie was a filet mignon, whereas the remake is a hamburger. But even filet mignon would get boring if you had it everyday, so it's nice to have a hamburger once in a while, for a change.


The original "Psycho" (1960) is widely considered as Alfred Hitchcock's best work and certainly, in my opinion, is one of the best movies of all time. The decision to film a shot by shot remake is therefore, a little puzzling.

The cast in the original was flawless, so the cast of this remake had a lot to live up to. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates was not a good choice for the lead. He is too much of a pretty boy hunk and is not very convincing as Bates. I can imagine actors such as Mark Wahlberg or John Turturro doing a much better job in the role. Anne Heche as Marion Crane does a creditable job, but one keeps mentally comparing her to Janet Leigh. Julianne Moore is a much better actress than she shows here and Viggio Mortenson merely walks through his role. The best of this new cast is William H. Macy as the private detective.

Although director Gus Van Sant does an acceptable job, he can't build the suspense the way Hitchcock did. And why did he change the scene in the basement of the house? In the original, the atmosphere is dark and damp and closed in, whereas in this version, it takes place in a brightly lit laboratory like setting. And I think the black & white photography of the original has a definite advantage over the color version.

Maybe another flaw could be the fact that most moviegoers have seen the original and know what is going to happen and when.

All I can say is if it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Honestly, how hard can it be to make a good remake? Obviously pretty hard! I was soooo excited to see this because I loved the original, and my friends go and see it and tell me it really sucks. Well, I finally see it and I was sooo disapointed. Ok, the shower scene was more realistic...that's why I gave it a 3. Otherwise, it did suck. Vince Vaughn does a terrible job playing Norman, he's just too dense or something. I don't know, it was just terrible. Don't see it!


No,no,no. That is my advice to you if you are wanting to see this film. Anthony Perkins is the one and ONLY Norman Bates,as is Janet Leigh in her role as Marion Crane. This just seems like a colorized version of Psycho,with a few mildly different touches thrown in for a more modern appeal. Vaughn is dull as ill Norman,and Viggo Mortenson's Sam Loomis seems too much the cowboy compared to the original. Please folks,do yourself some justice. Don't bother with this. One can only wonder what Mr. Alfred Hitchcock and Mr. Anthony Perkins would be thinking right now.......

 * out of ****


The first review I saw of this on IMDB says that Vince Vaughn is a much better actor than Anthony Perkins was in this role. Makes me wonder if he saw the original. It's tough to review Psycho if you don't have the perspective of how revolutionary the movie was in 1960. You have a heroine who isn't very likable and is killed not far into the movie and a villain who is creepy, but makes you feel for him. Add to that some graphic violence and you have a blue print for some of the slasher films of the 80s and 90s.

Where does this film go wrong? Let's start with casting. Anne Heche is fine as a Vivian Crane, but as Norman Bates, Vince Vaughn is all wrong. For one thing, he looks far too young. Secondly, he has no idea how to play the roll. His nervous laugh reminds me of Ron Howard trying to play a tough guy on Happy Days. Everything he does screams I DID IT! The original movie, even to those who know everything about it, still makes you feel uneasy about the influence of mother on Norman, and turns her into a real separate character. How about the shower scene. When I finally saw the 1960 movie on a big screen, I was surprised at its power to scare the heck out of me. Bernard Herrman's score becomes incredibly shrill and loud and goes further toward scaring you than Danny Elfman's synth interpretations during the scene. This shower scene merely serves to show us Anne Heche's naked body and some nice color blood. Which brings us to the choice to film in color. Didn't work.

There is something about remaking classic films that hardly ever seems to work. Some may see this as a noble experiment, but honestly, if Gus Van Sant had nothing to add to this film, he should have left it alone


Jud Nelson is an aspiring actor who becomes involved with a married couple who enjoy playing sadistic games on other people. The husband gets his jollies by burying people alive. If that isn't bad enough, he has a miniature video camera in each coffin so he can watch his victims suffocate.


Dodgy plot, dodgy script, dodgy almost everything in fact. The most compelling performance is that of Joanna Pacula as Lauren, but even that does not rescue this pointless and nasty film. The director's implicit invitation to viewers is not merely to suspend disbelief but to suspend judgement.

Presumably it is intended to be steamy and menacing, but although the film has its erotic moments they are few and far between. This sort of thing has been done better by lots of others. Don't go out of your way to see it.


Totally forgettable movie but an unbelievable soundtrack: I'd give it (soundtrack)a 9 out of 10. I have the CD and the guitar work (Nils Lofgren) is superb! I saw the movie years ago and had to check IMDb to remember what it was about. I obsessed about getting the soundtrack and have since had to replace it. It ranges from blues/soul/ballad to a dose of gospel. All songs written, arranged, produced and performed by Nils Lofgren who is the "other" lead guitarist opposite Steve Van Zandt in the E Street Band. This dude can play! The vocals are handled by Nils (he can't sing very good-too raspy), Bonnie Sheridan (who is a great singer) and Tom Lepson.


It was poorly shot. Looks Like a rush job, last minute casting is obvious. Writing is very weak. Good for stage, not film. I feel bad for Andrew McCarthy. He's a very good actor who has not been getting good roles lately. This role was not for him. Maybe glad it has been picked up yet. On the festival circuit this film shall stay.


Awful in a whole new way, ANYTHING BUT LOVE probably should be seen by movie buffs--if only as a cautionary measure that proves all that can go wrong with a "vanity" production. I am guessing a vanity production, since there is no other reason on god's green earth to cast as talent-free and not particularly attractive non-singer/actress as Isabel Gold in the leading lady role--vied for yet by the likes of "lookers" like Cameron Bancroft and Andrew McCarthy--except that she also helped write this bizarre little movie. Her singing leaves much to be desired, and yet, unbelievable as it is, all the other characters in the film think she's terrific. There are a few moments here of actual charm or humor, but VERY few. Otherwise this is a silly, sad fiasco that veers from paint-by-numbers to paint-by-wrong-numbers. You know how it is when people look at a piece of modern art and someone says, "My kid could do better than that!" Well, this is a movie, the likes of which your--or anyone's--kid might do better.


One would think that with all the lavish care and expense that went into this made-for-TV movie, it would reflect something of the taste and manners of the upper class couple--Wallis Simpson and the Prince of Wales--instead of being a mawkish, unappetizing historical romance.

Nor is it helped by the fact that JANE SEYMOUR and ANTHONY ANDREWS give stiff, rather uncomfortable to watch performances in which the events move much too slowly to hold attention.

It's hard to understand why a star of OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND's caliber would wish to play the supporting role of Aunt Bessie since the role is so colorless she just about fades out of sight. At this stage in her career, Olivia was appearing in so many "nobility" roles requiring a regal presence but nothing more.

A trivial movie best left forgotten among all the made-for-TV movies of that era.


Don't get me wrong. I've got a considerable soft spot for the works of Charles Band, both as producer and director. But you've got to raise an eyebrow when the man who was willing to put his name to "Dollman Vs The Demonic Toys" sticks a pseudonym on anything. As a bit of bad-movie fun, "Head Of The Family" is rather lacking, although it is better acted than you might expect. Jacqueline Lovell is a definite talent who deserves better than these kinds of movies. J.W. Perra is also quite funny as the titular monster, though for such a superintelligent being he does get hoodwinked quite easily. Y'know, I'm nitpicking because the rest of the movie is so sharp and witty of course....

And having a lead character called Lance Bogan? Nice one guys. We didn't know you Americans knew that piece of slang!


This movie is awful, just awful. Someone bought it for me as a Christmas present because they knew I liked a good horror flick. I don't think they understood the "Good" part. All I can say is next year this person is getting slipper socks from me. Avoid this movie-- it makes you bitter. Peace.


I saw this film for one reason: the tagline is "Upset the head and you're dead!" Cracking. It's not surprising that this silly horror comedy runs out of steam before the tape is out of the box, but it wrings a few laughs from its oddball premise and cast of characters: an eagle-eyed human radar, a huge strongman, and a big-breasted sexual magnet are all mind-controlled by a huge head in a chair, who's not happy about his family being blackmailed by a murderous scumbag. This looks like being a promising mixture of ham and cheese before it becomes clear that the characters are one joke wonders and the plot is pretty ordinary if you, erm, ignore the giant head.


Ahh, nuthin' like cheesy, explopitative, semi-porn, masquerading as horror...This one stars Jaqueline Lovell(sometimes Sara St. James), the nubile starlet also seen in "Femalien", "The Erotic House of Wax", and that family favorite "Nude Bowling Party". She is now a fixture in Surrender Cinema's line-up of talentless cuties starring in pointless, soft-porn exploitation flicks. "Head of the Family" actually tries to be a real moovie. A con-man and a tramp try to get said-tramp's husband off-ed. They turn to a large-brained evil genius in a wheelchair, and his family of moronic misfits, who uses mind control to send out zombies to do his nefarious bidding. Said-genius has a giant head, hence the clever title of the film: that's about the extent of the film's humor. But basically, it's an excuse to show off the ample talents of Lovell and Dianne Colazzo (Ernestina). Laced with some of the wierdest dialogue can be herd (what the heck is "plowing oats", anycow??), and just plain stupid, this titular thriller will moost likey appeal to the breast-cownters of Drive-In Theater, but no one else. The MooCow says avoid the devoid, unless yer looking for a rent on cheesy T&A/horror night. :=8P


This movie was not only disappointing to the horror/suspense film lover, it was disappointing to anyone who sees it. WoW. I thought that this film might be funny because the guy with the huge head. However, it was filled with long and drawn out conversation that wasn't needed. There was so much sex that I hate women and men now. This film was not only boring, but there was no substance. Wow. Wow. On to of all this, each scene looks like it was light from a single light bulb, and I think they used the same set for two different lawyers, a restaurant, and an airport. This movie is not for the movie lover who loves bad movies because in the end, it feels likes wasted time. See the movie!

-party


No gore, no blood, no gratifying death scenes...dumb dumb dumb dumb. Dear God sitting through this movie made me sick. Sick sick sick. Very boring...extremely boring...

Theres not even a humorous aspect to this film! i cant find a good thing to say about it, other than the lead guy had a nice body...I guess. Definitely not worth the fifty cents I paid to rent it.


This movie gives a cinematic example of the word worthless. It's awful, you can forget plot or decent acting, cause it's not there. And with the dismissal of any decent story or acting or even the trait of being mildy frightening then there is usually only one plus left for a horror film. The appeal to those who like soft core porn. This film doesn't even have that. The women show a little skin, but not really anymore than say the Xena show. Except for the main star who is not particularly attractive and has a couple of poor, and I mean poor sex scenes. So in short if you like good movies you have no interest in this film, if you like cheese you still don't have any reason to rent this film, if you like erotica and soft core porn you really have no motive to rent this film, and most importantly if you value your time in the slightest, you cannot do better than to avoid this movie.


Upon completing this infernal piece of trash, a friend and I swore a solemn vow never to again speak of how we had just trashed away the last 90 minutes of our lives. This film is completely pointless, a two dimensional hero and heroin who we can't give a hoot whether or not they survive and some of the lamest villains to ever darken the screen of horror (or any other) genre. To further prove just how absolutely pointless this film was, I would have liked to add a plot synopsis, but I can't write fiction. All and all, the only reason I can think of that anyone would ever want to view this film is if they had just murdered their entire community and is looking for some self afflicted punishment that will haunt you for all following years to come!


This has to be one of the all time greatest horror movies. Charles Band made the best movie of 96' in this little seen gem. Highly realistic and , incredibly stylised- with a visual flair David Fincher would envy, its not hard to see why Band went on to make such classics as 'Killjoy 2: Deliverance From Evil', 'The Regina Pierce Affair', 'Virgins of Sherwood Forest', and 'Timegate: Tales of the Saddle Tramps'.

With a highly sophisticated story- a tiny body with a large head controls a family of weirdos who perform experiments on naked women, this movie may be a bit too much for younger viewers and is only for the most educated type of viewer, but for those who see it, Band is able to convey subtle messages about the human condition through his masterpiece. The head is symbolic of the lost love and longing for one's inner self that we all must face at one point or another, and for this reason i was able to engage with this film on a deeply personal level. Although many earlier critics have compared Band's film to Re-animator and other lesser works, this stands head and heels above the rest. It is gorier, but not pointlessly. The gore in this film is well crafted and used to enhance the storyline, rather than to just get a cheap shriek out of the audience. Also, the special effects in this film are absolutely top notch, easily the best work done in a horror film since... well... ever! The work in this film makes Savini's effects look like the work of a blind, limbless hobo.

The only problem i have with this film is the copious amounts of full frontal nudity, which were ultimately unnecessary in achieving the composer's goal- to create a timeless epic that would forever go down in history as possibly the greatest film of all time. If it were not for this slight problem i would have given this film a perfect 10.


A couple of friends and myself visited the video shop a few years back and we were in one of those moods to rent some cheesy non seen flicks. My friend grabbed Head of the Family and we were greeted by a head sitting in a wheelchair. Well that set us off laughing and we decided to have a bet to see who would be the one who had to go to the desk and pay for the movie. Well you guessed it, it was me!!!!!!!! I have never been so embarrised in all my life. We got home and put it on and we rolled about the floor laughing for about 45mins because this was the funniest film in the world. I cant remember much about it but one thing i do remember was the blonde girl getting it on with some guy in the back of a shop every 5 mins. That head made me laugh and when i look at other peoples comments aboout this movie it makes me laugh even more. Head of the family is so good and the head is funny and im still laughing ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


I watched this film on the advice of a friend who assured me it was one of the funniest things he'd ever seen. Sadly this person is completely lacking a sense of humour and I was forced to endure two hours of the worst film making I have ever seen. Please do not watch this film. 1/10


I saw this movie on a show that was showing bad B-movies and trying to get you to buy them. It basically was just a long trailer but gave you a really good idea of what the movie was about. After viewing the trailer, I thought I would rent this movie because it looked stupid and generic, but could still be entertaining in a perverse sense. IT'S NOT ENTERTAINING in any sense of the word. The film has two (or should I say four) things going for it and it's not the number of deaths, it's the women. They are hot and naked a lot and Ms. Lovell could be a legit actress, but not in a movie where the emphasis is on T&A and corny dialogs. This isn't even a horror movie or scary, unless you are talking about watching the actors try to act. The production value is pathetic, the acting is worse and the writing is the worst. What was the point in making this movie? To scare people? To rip off "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"? To try and be funny? To show off the women's breasts? To put some guy's head into a retarded outfit, with fake hands and legs? To have a character just say the word "Snow" over and over? To not have any real violence but have enough nudity in an attempt to cover up the fact there is no real plot? To be able to make a sequel to a movie no one has seen or will ever watch? I made a mistake in picking up this movie, don't make this mistake too.

STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I am not a fan of the original book but was expecting to see a better adaptation than the Natalie Portman movie, which I found awful. This version is even worse.

First, there is very little of Ms. Gregory's book in this script. The whole subplot of George Boleyn's sexuality is completely eliminated and in this version George is merely a flunky shuttling between his duty to the Boleyn family and his duty to the King. I thought the title of the book referred to Mary as the lesser-known of the Boleyn sisters, but here it is used to refer to Anne.

Second, the script has the characters periodically address the audience as if in confession. Apparently this is intended to give a bit of back story and explain their motives, but it is amateurish in execution.

On top of the bad script, the direction is stunningly bad. There are too many shots done with a circling camera which is none-too-steady at best and downright shaky at worst. Several of the speeches are delivered tentatively, as if in a first rehearsal. The production values for Henry's flamboyant court are minimal. The costumes vary: some are copies of historical portraits and others are from some costume designer's fevered imagination. And the King, the source of all power and favors, is often shown ALONE. No fawning courtiers, no servants in the background - where are all the people?? I am accustomed to Hollywood turning history into fantasy, but I expected better from a BBC production. Even based on a flawed book this production is BAD.


i was lucky enough to read the book beforehand and i do know a little about Tudor england.

the writing directing and editing of this TV movie for the most part was truly awful. i felt as if i was watching a really bad drama doc about the period rater then a movie.

first there were too many cut's between important parts. And leaving out important events which happened at the time, one is henry's fall out with Rome over his desire to divorce Katherine of aragon which led to england's breaking away from Rome and establishing her own church. they barely stuck to the book at all. i'm all for creative freedom but to a limit, especially when your dealing with a well written book as your starter point. in the book Mary give's birth to young Catherine first and then she has young Henry is born. Both their father is Henry's the eight. in the movie they show harry's first then Catherine. And suggest that Catherine father is William Carey.

there are too many bad moment's in the movie to write them all.

i will however say that Jodhi May and Natascha McElhone portrayal as the Boleyn sisters was probably the best part of the movie.

if you haven't read the book and know nothing about Hennry's the 8 court i will recommend to stay away from this movie. And for those who read the book the movie will annoy you for it's lack of details and important plot's.


This movie twists the facts of Anne and Mary's lives into something unrecognizable. To make Mary Boleyn, who in fact was a rather dim and foolish creature, and make her the "good" sister is just silly. It is Anne who was in fact the far more interesting character, and that is why it is her life, and not Mary's, that has been told so often.

In response to an earlier review, I fail to see how Anne's life was so "criminal"... to me it's Henry who was the real criminal. Whatever Anne's motives for winning the king and withholding her affections in order to gain a crown and husband has to be taken into context of the time in which these real-life events took place. Anne, in comparison to the majority of most of the courtiers in her time, was a relatively innocent figure. Most modern historians discount or have disproven most of the myths and slanders that this movie perpetuate about her, and I have never heard of anyone who actually believes the rumour than she slept with her brother. This movie is so sensational and false that it is maddening to think that someone, without knowing anything about this period in history, could walk away believing anything this movie has presented as "fact".

I won't even get into the weird filming of the movie... but I'm pretty sure that cameras weren't invented in the 16th century, so I don't understand why Anne and Mary are talking to one throughout the movie... it's a really bad plot devise and is jarring and annoying, to put it mildly.

Anne of the Thousand Days is not accurate either, but is infinitely more entertaining and at least comes closer to telling the story of one of the most intriguing women of history. Don't even think about renting this.. it's two hours you'll never get back!


This movie was included in the Six Wives of Henry VIII BBC miniseries DVD. I loved those six movies. They were well-acted, well-scripted, and historically accurate. I did actually read Gregory's book and liked it well enough despite it's HUGE historical inaccuracies (I mean the whole fake homosexual angle with George Boleyn in particular), but this movie didn't even mention that. That angle was one of the pivotal points of the book.

Above all this movie just leaves me asking "WHY?" Why do we see, as someone else aptly put, "The Real World: Tudor England"? Why are the camera angles so bad in general?

Why is the script so bad? I mean, I know it was improv, but come on! The actors at time stutter and stammer over their lines and it's obvious that they're making them up as they go along.

Why are the sex scenes so awkward? The way they were done in the book made them at least somewhat interesting. In the movie they're just bad, verging on being absolutely hilarious. At one point, the actress playing Mary Boleyn was having sex with the actor playing Henry VIII. He's thrusting away and she's got this look on her face that says "Hm....I need to go to the store. Is he done yet? Maybe if he finishes I can go pick up some cheese real quick..." It's just bad.

Why does Catherine of Aragon play such a small role in this movie? Her refusal to get a divorce was one of the leading causes for the scandal that rocked Christiandom. She's the reason why Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn couldn't get immediately married. Why is she not present here? Over all, this movie is just bad.


I realize a period piece is expensive to make, and that this style of shooting (close framed shots to camera, moving camera, wide aperture shots, washed-out) allows such films to be made for a price. As a style, it has advantages and disadvantages like any other, it allows more period pieces to be made. Like any style it has its detractors and supporters - there are probably even those that believe that this manner of shooting has an artistic basis.

If only some of the money saved, could have been spent on the script for whatever style is used, a film needs good writing and good acting.

The acting in this film is mostly very good. The writing less so. It is composed of a collection of bits taken from the book and much which is relevant to the plot is left out making for a disjointed collection of scenes with little or no continuity.

If you have read the book, do not under any circumstances watch it. If you have not read the book, are easily pleased and have nothing better to do there is no harm in watching it, but be prepared to be disappointed.

It could have been so much better.


The Other Boleyn Girl - not to be confused with the book it claims to be based upon. This movie is not even close to a faithful adaptation. I could understand them changing or elaborating on a few things. The book is not perfection, but it was well-written and became very popular. I could understand if the BBC wanted to make this a little more faithful to what actually happened, who Anne Boleyn really was - but it's not even close to being historically accurate either. It's just fluff. Mindless, made-up fluff. A real shame.

To begin with, the writer and director seemed to think it was a good idea to setup the story like it was a reality TV show. Seriously. They have the Boleyns sitting in front of the camera, confessing how they REALLY feel about what's happening in their lives. Anne Boleyn sits in a confessional (not the church kind, the Real World kind) and chooses what she wants to tell and what she wants to just sit and smile about. She looks stupid having to use such a modern cinematic device in a film set in the 1500s. It's "The Real World: Tudor England!"

Jodhi May is a very good actress and after 'The Aristocrats' and 'A Turn of the Screw' I was becoming a real fan of hers. But she should never have been cast as Anne. Actually I think she would have been a better Mary. Natascha McElhone was a poor choice. She's a good actress, sure, but she has very modern features and does not appear convincing in period costume. (Honestly, I spent the first half of the film trying to figure out if she was "that girl" from 'The Truman Show.' She was.) She's also too old to play the teen-aged Mary so for some unknown reason they made Mary the oldest of the sisters. It makes no sense, I know. It's like the BBC seemed to forget that these people actually lived. They're twisting the story around and making things up left and right. I feel ridiculous having to correct the BBC on historical inaccuracies, but REALLY!

Apart from the two sisters the rest of the cast was actually very well chosen. Steven Mackintosh struck me as a brilliant choice for George, and his casting was the real reason I decided to seek out this movie. Big mistake. He does a great job, sure, but he's hardly in this. How can anyone pretend they're adapting The Other Boleyn Girl and hardly mention George Boleyn? That's just absurd. Philip Glenister was another very good casting decision, but yet again, was hardly in the finished product.

The real problem with this is the script. There's just no getting around that. It's bad. It's really, really bad. It's too melodramatic and not engaging. Anne is portrayed as an air-head, Mary as the ringleader, and George as the follower. Mary's first husband is hardly mentioned, her relationship with the king is never explained - they simply do not tell the story Phillippa Gregory wrote. The whole thing comes across as a great big waste. I have no desire to see this thing a second time. I guess I'll just have to read the book again and hope that the Natalie Portman version due out next year will be much better.

*Note: As of this writing, the only way of obtaining this miniseries in the USA is on the last disc of the miniseries 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII.' That's a great miniseries but can cost $50 to $60 and that's way to much to spend if you're just looking for this piece of garbage.


I can't express enough just how bad this film was. First of all what a waste of some legendary stars although they are quite old and pretty unconvincing. Fred Astaire, well I guess he must have owed some one a big favor as this was his last film role. The script is a mess and the film seems terribly draggy. I imagine maybe if I saw this back when it came out (1981) I might have thought it was decent. However seeing so many actual good horror films, this was one of the worst. The only real convincing anything in this mess was the very young and lovely sort/of creepy Alice Krige. The main young character was trying to act the best he could but was utterly terrible. I wasn't sure how much of it was from his lack of skill or the lack of a comprehend-able script, but either way he was just plain bad. Don't watch unless you want to see a bunch of old guys be somewhat scared.