Psycho [DVD]

Ok here's the thing. This version of Psycho was on tv the other night and since I had never given this version a chance I thought I'd give it a go. When it was finished I was left with the question, was it good or bad? I am usually very quick to judge when I watch movies but I couldn't give an opinion on this one. Hence the 3 stars I have given the film. Not fantastic but not terrible either. To try and make a decision on the film, I visited the website, which I thought would be down by now but found it and read the very large part on the site that dealt with the question, 'Why a remake of Psycho?'. I found it very interesting as it quoted director Gus Van Sant, actors Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche, and even Alfred Hitchcock's daughter who was the technical consultant on the movie. She praised it believing her father would be honoured that Psycho was being remade and would have loved the project. After reading it all, I took into account the words of Gus who said that the original couldn't possibly be made any better but the aim of this remake was a simple update. This time in colour, new actors and better visual effects. Also for modern day audiences who might never have seen the original to watch this modernised version, in the hope they would go back and watch the 1960's classic. Vince Vaughn is no way trying to portray Anthony Perkins as he made the character unique. Gus went on to say reading the book portrayed Norman Bates in a completely different way to how Anthony portrayed him. He wanted Vince and Anne to acknowledge the original characters but still have freedom to play the character in their own way to. This has made me appreciate the way Vince played Norman because before going to the website I, like many others, was trying to compare him to Anthony. So I leave you with this plea, see the film but visit the website as this hopefully will help you understand why such a classic was remade.

For all the "reasons" Gus Van Sant gave for wanting to make a (virtually) shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock's seminal movie Psycho, unless his main reason was to show that he was not, and never could be, in Hitchcock's class as a film maker it's safe to say he failed.

Of course he was on a hiding to nothing from the start, although he might have well gotten away with a re-made "homage" which appropriated parts of the original, as the original is one of the most famous movies ever made. He's not helped by disastrous choices in the main casting. Vince Vaughn's Norman Bates is wrong in almost every sense; whereas Anthony Perkins Bates hides his menace (at least at first) Vaughn seems unable to contain at any point the fact that his character is mad and, or an even more basic level, is just too imposing. His slightly "larger", less attractive version of Bates might be more akin to the original novel but as the novel is, frankly, dull and turgid that's hardly an excuse. Anne Heche may be a decent enough actress but she has none of the star power of Janet Leigh and even if, despite the original's ubiquity, you didn't know she was going to be killed off by half-time her death has little of the shock value that was so important to the original.

Filling the lesser roles in the films with "star names" somewhat misses the point as well. Viggo Mortensen is definately a better actor than John Gavin (or "the stiff" as Hitchcock called him) but in this "shot-for-shot" remake he's not afforded the opportunity to make the role his own.

IF Van Sant had made an attempt to do something different this movie might have been something worth watching but as it is it's just a mess and the small differences that Van Sant does make have no positive effect on the movie at all (do we really need such explicit information about what Vaughn's Norman Bates is doing whilst he watches Anne Heche in the shower?). If you're a Hitchcock fan this might have some small interest to you, if only to confirm to you that you were right all along, Hitchcock was a genius, but even if you could detach this movie from the original (which, to be honest, you can't) this would still be a dog of a movie which seemingly manages to totally miss the point about everything that made Psycho such a great movie in the first place.

i grew up with the old classic from alfred hitchcock, and i must say compared to that this was a poor attempt of a remake! .. however classic version aside i still cant say that this was gr8. it did not have a scare edge to it at all and the acting from vince vaughn was to be honest a utter dissapointment!... i think this was one of the first films i seen him in and it made me not like his acting much. he cannot play the part of a nutcase at all. his perfpmance seemed a little false.. however overall the film itself is ok. i cant say i totally hated it and i cant say i liked it. hence why i gave it 3 stars. i will recommend you go for the original.