Think I liked it more than most. Beautifully shot

It's alright and is basically psycho but in colour but I prefer the original. Anthony Perkins was way better as normal bates than Vince Vaughn.

The cinematic sacrilege aside, the performances are solid, and probably the best thing this duplicative remake has to offer, as well as the intriguing alternate interpretations of the characters.

Brilliant acting and wonderful scenery. Not sure why people can't acknowledge that.

This was an Ok Remake but it does not beat the Original, For whatever reason it just didn't feel The same anymore. The basement was awfully done and the whole movie just felt like a Cartoon instead of real horror. It's Ok but could have been better, it just didn't work for me

I actually really enjoyed this movie. I thought the ending where he was actually dressed up as the grandma was such a plot twist and super suspenseful. I think Hitchcock was trying to show that many people have different personalities, obviously the movie takes it to another level. Psycho had a great twist to the end, I don't think anyone was expecting.

Enjoyed the movie and also liked the idea of the man playing the role as the mother not only in the movie but in his mind as well it was very interesting and always kept me on my toes- never knew what was gonna happen next

Today (December 04, 2023) is the 25th anniversary of the theatrical release of director Gus Van Sant's controversial (1998) recreation of Alfred Hitchcock's (1960) masterpiece'PSYCHO'. I think this film is bizarre, ridiculous, and fascinating! I love every second of it, almost as much as I don't! B+

After these past few days of exploring the range of quality that is the Psycho sequels, whether or not I really wanted to see the Gus Van Sant remake played on my mind. The completionist part of me got the better of me and here I am, having watched it. The Psycho Experiment as Van Sant and others now refer to it as is a very strange beast, it's one of a select few official shot-for-shot remakes to ever be championed and yet it still contains its fair share of differences from the original. There are slight differences in terms of visuals, minor plot details, updated elements of the screenplay, the contemporary setting and subsequent inflation of the stolen money; Van Sant added several surreal subliminal images edited into the film's murder sequences almost like memory fragments flashing in front of characters' eyes as they die. The use of colour and heightened violence due to an increase in movies made circa 1998 don't gel well with the source material and certain moments performed by the cast fundamentally change the meaning of certain scenes, ergo the infamous eye through the wall peep going from simple observation to full on masturbation. While Bernard Herrmann's musical score is reused, the new stereo recordings made by Danny Elfman and Steve Bartek are often mistimed with where the original cue placements were. The casting of Vince Vaughan as Norman Bates has to be one of the biggest miscastings in movie history, he is unable to capture that same secret pool of madness that Perkins had done so effortlessly. Anne Heche woefully overacts her way through the movie and turns Marion into a completely different character. Julianne Moore as Lila is much more aggressive in comparison to Vera's portrayal in the original but does turn in a good performance, paired with Viggo Mortensen as Sam, the two try and rescue the film from its amateur dramatics vibe. The standout of the film is definitely William H. Macy's Arbogast, staying true to Martin Balsam's original performance yet making it his own with ease. Nothing about Gus Van Sant's Psycho improves nor illuminates Hitchcock's original, somehow Van Sant managed to convince someone at Universal to greenlight this, bringing about an artful and somewhat faithful remake... Who am I kidding? It's straight-up plagiarism.

One of the worst movies ever made

A dreadful experiment from Indie film maestro Gus Van Sant; hot off his success with Good Will Hunting; who put his newly acquired A-list status to work producing this dreck; a shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock's classic thriller about serial killer Ed Gein; Psycho. And boy was this experiment a disaster! One of the worst film's ever made. The concept here is just assinine and idiotic. What was the point of a shot-for-shot remake? Particularly of such a classic?!! You might as well have just colorized the original! So stupid this; it's impossible to overcome with any solid work by Anne Heche, Julianne Moore or William H. Macy. (Party boy comedian Vince Vaughn is horribly miscast as Norman Bates; not at all convincing as the tightly wound eponymous psychopath. I can see Joaquin Phoenix playing this role much more effectively; or Ralphe Fiennes; or anyone else.) It's too bad Van Sant's temporary lunacy here will be etched on his tombstone; probably the first thing to be mentioned in his obituaries right after his successes with Good Will Hunting and My Own Private Idaho. Did Van Sant learn anything from his mistake? Not really. When asked about it recently; he defiantly said; "oh I thought it was great! I think I'll remake Psycho every ten years or so from now on!" Some mavericks never learn.

I don't understand the hate for this movie. It is as good as the original and yet it has some subtle improvements. Like the shower scene where you can literally feel the knife plunging into Marion's body.

Gus Van Sant cerca di rendere omaggio ad Alfred Hitchcock e al contempo di portare il suo tocco in un remake che però disattende le aspettative rendendo semplicemente fallimentare il progetto. Le pecche maggiori sono due, in primis le sequenze di azione girate in stile anni '70, sono forse l'omaggio maggiore all'originale ma anche il meno opportuno; rendono il film semplicemente poco fruibile per gli standard degli anni e lo rendono estremamente artificioso. In secondo luogo, non sfruttare a pieno un cast del genere è un vero peccato; soprattutto Mortensen e la Moore sono sprecati e svalutati. Tutto evitabile.

I can't imagine that anyone, even younger people, haven't seen the original 1960 Psycho. But if any such people exist, I implore them not to start here. The biggest problem with Van Sant's remake is the cast. Vince Vaughn looks too good to be a psycho. He looks like he's been working out at a Hollywood gym, whereas Tony Perkins was thin and nerdy---and far more naturalistically creepy. Anne Heche is merely passable, not memorable, as the unfortunate Marion Crane. Julianne Moore is simply flat, nearly lifeless as Marion's sister. Even though the film is supposed to be an exact shot-by-shot remake, Van Sant can't resist embellishing things with nudity and excess blood. He even screws up the shower scene with unnecessary shots outside of the bathroom. This film is not a total disaster, but nobody can ever hope to equal the original. Forget it.

Stayed awayed because of the perception: unasked for, unwanted, and completed uncalled for. Finally bothered. Not entirely rat feces, but might as well be, I'll now go over why in precise detail. Celebrity cast wasted, from what there is. From what there... isn't, Vaughn almost always botches the most iconic Bates scenes, Moore reaches a lot and ironically couldn't scream well enough to save her own life, and worst of all, Heche ranging from the horribly unperiodic costumes to her ridiculous make-up job and back to her horrendous portrayal of the star victim, looks so horrible that I couldn't tell any worse if she had been ejected from a dinosaur's rectum, had the best plastic surgeon on call 24-7, and still come out looking like Kim Kardashian's (who looks like a diseased mannequin on heroine) stunt double. And this farce almost pales in the face of stupid changes or, rather, lack of said change that ends up trading a car for a rust bucket almost a decade old to the year the movie takes place / came out, had the wrong change for a pay phone (should've been 35c, I would know), actually skipping important parts of conversations (like an early tip off, say, the sheriff's wife being confused and thinking Norman had found himself a woman), to the logical but seriously blasphemous of the sacrosanct, turning Bates into a literal wanker, on film, that still keeps his childhood Playboys around. As if it isn't bad enough that Vaughn botches the shower clean up, the almost apoplectic but contained fury during the "somewhere" scene, can't come across like he's winging it with Arbogast while getting grilled (acts more silver-tongued honestly, like he rehearsed it... moron), repeatedly overkills his "shut up" lines... hell, he doesn't even get the famous "we all go mad sometimes" bit right. How messed up is that? Last but not least, throw in the fact that Lina actually flirts with Norman, and Norman acts progressively more feminine as the movie wears on--you know, I could forgive things like changing Norman's personality, etc, if you intended a real remake to begin with. But no, you replicate as much as the original as you can. As if the original movie could say, "Am I a joke to you?" It's not so much that the movie is JUST a sham, it IS an insult too. Think about this the next time you pull out an unwanted copy. No one wants you. Now get out.

There's absolutely no reason to remake reshoot this classic horror. Watch the original instead. Period.

This is as good a remake of a mundane original as you could ask for. The original Psycho is overrated and drab. So is this, but it is Hitchcock's fault, not the makers of this one. For what it is I was pleased. Anne Heche was a crappy choice for Marion, but she was passable I guess. But frankly, you can never go wrong with Vince Vaughn! I'd say skip the original and just watch this one.

on paper this is a good film because this is a shot for shot remake which is the worst thing about this movie, if you don't have any ideas for a remake, it's best not to do it in the end.

Coming off such a great film in 'Good Will Hunting,' director Gus Van Sant decided to play it safe by doing a remake. While a remake doesn't necessarily mean something will be bad, after all we do have John Carpenter's 'The Thing' as proof that a remake can work, in this case, it didn't. The issue with Psycho is that it was completely unnecessary in it's concept, and it's execution. Instead of trying to make it his own, the director instead did a carbon copy of Hitchcock, which, let me tell you, just doesn't work.

Pretty much a textbook example of how NOT to remake a movie. It's mostly a shot-for-shot carbon copy that seems more like an amateur fan-made YouTube recreation. And what do we get in the way of new material? Vince Vaughn jerking off.