Psycho remake

[wheresdonnie?]

Just finished watching this on TV, and yes, I know everyone hates it, but it's not that bad a movie. It is pointless, I mean...why? But the cast was great, even though Vince Vaughn was a bit off. I would have loved to see the same crew tackle a Psycho-esque movie, just not a remake. I just couldn't stop comparing it to the original.

[Cronos]

i found there to be nothing even remotely good about the Psycho remake, its pretty much a shot for shot remake except with some scenes thrown in such as Bateman jerking off that really add nothing to the story

i found the whole thing to be mundane, the acting, direction, soundtrack, sets

i remember reading an article in a magazine about it and they had a whole load of shots taken from the original and the remake which were identical.....

a complete whats the FUCKING point film (i feel the same about most other remakes) except for the people who wouldnt watch the original because its Black and White

[poopontheshoes7]

Probably the biggest whats the point movie ever. Seriously!! What the hell is the point of having the remake be the exact same movie except with a different cast?!?!
So fucking stupid............:mad:

[IamNoOne666]

agreed with everyone else, this is 100% pointless. The fact that I could sit down in the theatre before I ever saw the remake and qoute it line for line is not a good sign. But yeah even though it was an exact remake it sucks, go fig.

[Shockwave]

Why make a shot for shot remake? Wtf is the point?

Dawn of the Dead, Willard, TCM, ect, ect, are remakes i can stand behind abit due to the fact that they can be viewed APART from the original. I can say "these were worth making" despite my stance on remakes.

The remake of Psycho on the other hand is one of the FEW movies i can honestly say i have NO regrets about giving a 1/10.

Its wasted film.

[Scully1888]

Originally posted by Cronos
i found there to be nothing even remotely good about the Psycho remake, its pretty much a shot for shot remake except with some scenes thrown in such as Bateman jerking off that really add nothing to the story
Wrong Psycho! :D

Think about it though, Bates = Bateman. Homage?

[KcMsterpce]

I think it could have been an interesting way to do a movie, if it was done better. Bates jerking off is an example of that.
If it was done shot for shot and word for word, but still capable of bringing a completely different perspective on the same movie, I would have given props. But it doesn't. So the jerking off part is dumb, yes, but other shit LIKE that done more often could have been intruiging.

[GoldenGhost]

Caught it on UK television not too long ago, thinking it was the Hitchcock version I was sorely disappointed. Like most of you say, it was a shot-by-shot remake that had nothing else to offer except Van Sant’s use of lighting and colour, which really distracts the film from creating any sense of an uncanny atmosphere. Vince Vaughn was awfully bad casted here, he’s no Norman Bates. The Bates character is a skinny, pale, slightly unattractive character with a hint of madness to his look. Anthony Perkins pulled this off immensely, and these are some of the essential character qualities Vince didn’t have. He actually annoyed me when he tried to do that “wide-eyed stare”. Not a particularly awful film, but an awful attempt at a remake indeed.

[The_Driller_Killer]

I'm not particularly in favor of remakes, but it's obvious that there's no stopping these movie companies. No matter what, they're going to continue taking the easy way out by avoiding to write a fresh, new script and just recycle an old idea.

Having said that, I've always held a strong belief that if you're going to do a remake, stay as true to the original as possible and with that, Psycho succeeded. The only thing that really bothered me about this film was Vince Vaughn's atrocious acting. He was just so God-awful as Norman Bates, it was scary (and not in the way it was intended).

[Cronos]

Originally posted by Scully1888
Wrong Psycho! :D

Think about it though, Bates = Bateman. Homage?

oops :p

[heretic]

I really didn't see the point. I'm not much of a fan of remakes any way, but I don't mind some such as house on haunted hill which was a compleatly different film to the original and added much more to it. But I really can't see the point of remaking a classic film such as this the original was already good enough there was no need for it to be done again, its just pointless and then to remake it in such a way makes it even worse a terrible attempt to cash in on a classic film imo the whole thing was a disgrace. I'd of rather had another shoddy sequel than had to endure this.

[Wolfman]

Originally posted by GoldenGhost
Vince Vaughn was awfully bad casted here, he’s no Norman Bates. The Bates character is a skinny, pale, slightly unattractive character with a hint of madness to his look. Anthony Perkins pulled this off immensely, and these are some of the essential character qualities Vince didn’t have. He actually annoyed me when he tried to do that “wide-eyed stare”. Not a particularly awful film, but an awful attempt at a remake indeed.

Anthony Perkins was considered a sex symbol in his day. Norman Bates is not supposed to be unattractive. He's just supposed to be a bit of a shut-in. He's not supposed to look crazy. That's what makes the movie scary--the fact that anybody, even the nice, sweet boy-next-door who helps old ladies take their groceries home, could have real problems and be a murderer.

I liked the remake. It wasn't perfect, but it is a scene-by-scene reshoot of Hitchcock, so it becomes at least adequate by default. The original is still better, but I looked upon the remake as sort of a "tribute" to the first, and enjoyed seeing new actors' takes on old characters.

[heretic]

Originally posted by Wolfman

I liked the remake. It wasn't perfect, but it is a scene-by-scene reshoot of Hitchcock, so it becomes at least adequate by default. The original is still better, but I looked upon the remake as sort of a "tribute" to the first, and enjoyed seeing new actors' takes on old characters.

I understand what your saying and to a point I agree, but I am left with a naging thaught it my head although all you said is true what was is the point in having such a remake?
just my views

[Shockwave]

I liked the remake. It wasn't perfect, but it is a scene-by-scene reshoot of Hitchcock, so it becomes at least adequate by default. The original is still better, but I looked upon the remake as sort of a "tribute" to the first, and enjoyed seeing new actors' takes on old characters.

If your going to shoot a movie scene for scene like the original...why the fuck even bother?:confused:

That brings a movie down in my eyes, not up.

[Wolfman]

Originally posted by heretic
I understand what your saying and to a point I agree, but I am left with a naging thaught it my head although all you said is true what was is the point in having such a remake?
just my views

Just to see how different actors do it. How many people have made Hamlet? They don't change the lines, they don't add new scenes, they just do the same play over and over again. And yet nobody complains about that.

[heretic]

^ good point I never thaught of it like that and agree with you. But would you also agree that there are good and not so good presentations of Hamlet.

[IamNoOne666]

yeah my major dislikeing of it was just that, I thought the acting was HORRIBLE. And even though it's been said a million times I just can't stress enough that it was 100% not needed.

[teenkiller]

I watched the movie, thus completing the series, a couple of weeks ago. It's already been said to death but the film really was pointless. I wouldn't say I hated it because I didn't hate the original Psycho and this is a shot for shot remake but... it just felt like this movie didn't have a soul. If that makes any sense.

Anne Heche seems to play the part more wooden than Janet Lee ever did. Vince Vaughn? He kind of annoyed me here. He's reading the same lines as Anthony Perkins sure, but it also feels like he's trying to say them the same way Perkins did and it just doesn't sound right.

If it ain't broke... don't remake it.

Well thats all for now GOoD JOURNEY my fellow schmoes.

[PreySlayDisplay]

It seems like people are never satisfied with remakes no matter what. The Psycho remake was pretty much a carbon copy of the original, duplicating every frame of the original and people still hated it. Then you have Rob Zombie's Halloween in which the story was changed a bit, and people freaked the fuck out about that.

[The Postmaster General]

I didn't think it was as awful people said it was, only in comparison to the impact of the first one. Being pointless doesn't really stand as a criticism against it to me. No, I'll never seek out to watch it again, but I didn't feel my time had been wasted. I've seen too many movies worse than this one.

[yorrick brown]

He films it shot by shot,oh no wait he adds a scene of norman having a wank :rolleyes:.

[ilovemovies]

It's a fascinating, interesting failure IMO. As a movie it doesn't quite work although I think the acting was good, save for Vince Vaughn who was just all a wrong for the part of Norman Bates. He was seriously miscast, however I thought Anne Heche was actually better than Janet Leigh.

But while the movie doesn't quite work I was still fascinated and intrigued by it as a shot by shot remake. Was it pointless? Sure, but it was an expirament and if it doesn't quite work, it was still fascinating to watch.

6/10

[JJFlamingo]

Pointless and moronic. Someone should have directed Vaughn on the virtues of being SUBTLE with a role like Bates, instead of giggling like an obvious loony every 30 seconds during the key conversation scene with Heche. Really really bad...

4/10

[Superplasmatron]

I suppose it's better than colorising the original, I acually thought it was cool, I love Christopher Doyle.

[slickwilly]

remake was a stupid waste of time and should have never been done but really outside of phyco 1 and 2 the rest were just a waste.