Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent original version of Hitchcocks masterpiece, 12 Feb 2003
The film of Psycho follows almost exactly Bloch's original story. What is interesting is that Hitchcock bought up the first print run of the book so as it wouldn't ruin the suspense of his film- and in term of atmosphere they are equals. What the book lacks in chilling music and visuals it makes up in what Bloch chooses to say and what to withhold from the reader. Added to this is an insight into Norman Bates's mentality, which although makes him less of a monster makes us question a society that produces individuals like him.
Bloch's style, as to be expected, is sharp and tense- he guides us through his story only letting us see what he wants us to see and, in true thriller style, this makes the climax far more unexpected.
I would imagine most people wanting to read this book will already have seen Psycho, which is a shame, as they will already have pictures in their head when they read the familiar scenes. I would recommend reading this before watching the film- in both cases the end is very climatic but it makes more sense to see how Hitchcock developed Bloch's ideas.
This has to be one of the best thrillers I have read and is on par with ingenuity with Roald Dahl's Tales Of The Expected.
|
|
|
4 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Third-Rate Pulp Trash, 19 Aug 2003
My recently-purchased copy of Robert Bloch's PSYCHO features a cover photograph of Janet Leigh screaming and a quote from film director Alfred Hitchcock: "PSYCHO all came from Robert Bloch's novel." Not surprisingly, however, no mention is made of the fact that Hitchcock himself considered the novel third-rate pulp trash.And that, unfortunately, is exactly what this novel is. First published in 1959, the Bloch novel is everything you would expect from a bad 1950s pulp writer: it is lurid without being shocking, the characters are superficial, and the whole thing is somewhat less frightening than a baloney sandwich. True, the story and characters that Hitchcock would so successfully elaborate upon are all here--but if you're expecting something more in-depth than the film you are out of luck. The famous shower scene is all of four short paragraphs; the murder on the stairs (it happens at the front door in the book) gets even less attention; and it isn't until the final chapters that the novel builds up any steam at all. The problem isn't so much the story--certainly Hitchcock's version proves that much--as it is Bloch's style. Or, more specifically, Bloch's lack of it, for he has none. And his characters are even less interesting than his prose, so it should come as no surprise that Hitchcock did not invite Bloch to work on the film. It is a bit unusual to find a film that equals the book on which it is based; it is rarer still to find a film that bests it. But to describe this novel as mediocre beyond description in comparison with the film--would be generous. And quite frankly the spill-over audience from the film is probably the only reason this novel remains in print. Diehard fans of the film like myself can probably motivate themselves to read it through to the end, but even I regretted the time wasted on it. Give it a miss.
|
|
|
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Book Vs Film, 11 Feb 2004
To me, like many of you, i seen the film first. And lets get that out of the way first. I'm a big Hitchcock fan (check out the massive dvd box set!) , and Psycho is a good film. A horror classic in the traditional sense. I'm a big fan of it. And I thought that must have been a good book, I would like to check it out sometime. So a few years after I had first seen the film I got the book. It's been about 6 months since I read it, but the thing that sticks out in my mind is that the book adds a lot more to the film. And for any fan of the film, this is a good thing. I would recommend watching the film, then reading the book. The book offers much more insight into the mind of Norman Bates, and mother. The whole conflict between the two personalities is much more interesting. Gaps about the past are filled in, that where just mentioned in the film. So overall i'd say stick with the film. If you don't like it or thought it was Ok then fine. But if you like the film (in my case, a lot) then get the book. It adds dimensions to what you have seen. And also makes you think that if another director/writer had tackled a film version, it might have been a different film (not in a bad way) to Hitch's one.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by William Peter Blatty
by Shirley Jackson
by Poppy Z. Brite
by Katherine Dunn
by Michel Faber
