Psycho

Marion Crane steals $400,000 and is escaping to meet her boyfriend. When she gets tired during a stormy night she stops at the Bates motel. When she goes missing her sister, boyfriend and a private detective start to look for her. However the Bates motel run by Norman and his mother is a place of many secrets.

Remakes are regular things nowadays, but carbon copies are rare. This is a lift in terms of dialogue, shots almost everything at times. The big question is why? As a film in its own right it's not terrible but comparing it to the original it literally pales in comparison (despite the colour!). Why did we need this – sure on some level it may reach those who haven't seen the original and don't want to watch an 'old' film. But really – why should we indulge the multiplexers who refuse to watch anything made before 1991?

It's not bad – it's poor a poor relation of the original. In the UK we often get 50th anniversary etc re-releases of old films nationwide (admittedly not in all cinemas), in fact Psycho was out a few years ago. So the idea that a cheap copy is good because it'll help open it up to new audiences.

The cast are all OK – until you watch the original. Then Vaughn stands out as doing a poor imitation, Heche is nowhere near Leigh and Julianne Moore has too much 'strong woman' baggage from other roles to do well. Admittedly the all-star cast gives weight to the roles that were relatively minor – Macy, Mortensen, Forster, James LeGros, Philip Baker Hall etc – although really the question is why they all queued up to be in this toss!

Overall it's so-so as a film. However when you compare it to the original it's really a poor show and, because it's a carbon copy, you can't help but compare it line for line, scene for scene, actor for actor.

This is easily the worst remake in film history. I have never understood the idea of a remake at all. If a film, like Psycho, is so good to start with why on earth do you want to try and improve on it? If you insist on tampering with perfection, why then do you have to try to recreate it in it's whole? There is nothing original here. Gus Van Sant put nothing of himself into this film. They say imitation is the highest form of flattery, but this is ridiculous. There are a lot of sides to a character as complex as Norman Bates, and I suspect that Vaughn may have wanted to explore them. Instead Van Sant forced him into sticking to a cheap imitation of Anthony Perkins. Perkins turned in a performance that lead to one of the most memorable characters in film history and it would have been impossible for any actor, no matter how good to recreate that. The rest of the characters are stuck just as tight to similarly wooden imitations of the originals. It is almost painful to watch very talented actors (namely William H Macy) have that talent stifled. In the end, Gus Van Sant set out to pay homage to a great film. Instead he cheapened it, and created a movie that is not worthy of late night cable.

The most disposable movie in the history of cinema?This one is a strong contender!Why waste 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.

Now 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!

"Psycho" isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it . . . aw, it's terrible. An utterly soulless exercise in mimicry with an awful cast. what I really missed was Anthony Perkins; the guy had a clean- cut look that subverted his madness. But Vince Vaughn just screams serial killer. That's why none of this works. The stylistic choices are all ham-fisted, and there's no suspense because we're too busy comparing it to the original. And because it's "shot-for-shot", that's a hundred times worse than your average remake - most of which , by the way, usually bring something new to the table. Not here.

Avoid at all costs. This is not worth it.

2/10

One question, if I may . . . While we're on the subject of shot duplication, why the hell would you throw in an image of Heche hanging over the side of the tub? It deviates from the original, doesn't do your actress any favors (as Kevin Smith and Ralph Garman will certainly attest), and it's just asking for future Internet meme infamy.

19 years after the original shock of seeing one of the great Hitchcock classics massacred by one of the greatest living directors, I sat to watch it again. Surprise, surprise. Gus Van Sant's daring attempt could have been another masterpiece if the casting of Norman Bates, in particular, had been more visionary and less opportunistic. Imagine what a break for an actor to re-invent that iconic character. Imagine what Heath Ledger, Billy Crudup, Ryan Gosling or Guy Pearce could have done with it. I'm sure that if you had been riveted rather than embarrassed by that characterization, if Vince Vaughn was more of a serious actor who understood the responsibility of his endeavor Van Sant's Psycho would have been a triumph.