Psicosis II: El regreso de Norman

Even though Sir Alfred Hitchcock left us in 1980, his honor and memory lives on in the film. "Psycho II" begins where we left off 22 years ago. Norman Bates(Anthony Perkins) is released after his stay in a mental institution for the murder of Marion Crane(Janet Leigh) and several others. His release draws the ire of the sister, Lila Loomis(Vera Miles). Norman goes back to his motel home, where the manager Warren Toomey(Dennis Franz) runs it while Bates was institutionalized. Prior to returning, he goes to work at a greasy spoon diner where he meets Mary(Meg Tilly). That night, Norman takes over his motel after he fires Toomey for turning it into an "adult motel". The next day, Toomey drunkenly accosts Bates. And just say, he was fired, permanently. Here we go again. The murders are back. Has Bates gone back to his murderous ways? Apparently. However, Mary does cover for him when the sheriff comes by. If Norman was locked in the attic, who killed the teenage boy and Toomey? Well, Lila did have a daughter, and she's helping Norman. Lila wanted Norman to suffer and re institutionalized, but Mary has other plans. In this movie, Norman was more victim than villain. If Alfred was alive, he would have been proud. It was not bad! 3 out of 5 stars.

Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) is released after over 20 years in an asylum, supposedly cured. He goes back to Bates Motel...but then he starts seeing his dead mother again, gets phone calls from her and the murders start up again. Is it Norman going crazy again or is someone trying to drive him to it?

A very good, intricately plotted sequel to Hitchcock's classic. This could have been a disaster, but it isn't. The plot has many twists and turns and moves quickly. Director Richard Franklin does an excellent directing job, setting up some very eerie shots and duplicating some of Hitchcock's shots from the original. Perkins is just OK (he should have toned down on the twitches) and Meg Tilly is her usual blank self but there is a strong supporting cast including Vera Miles and Robert Loggia. One minor problem--was it necessary to get so violent and bloody at the end (although it's restrained for a 1980s horror film)? Still, worth catching. Great final shot too.

The original Psycho as directed by Alfred Hitchcock is one of the seminal horror films of all-time. Psycho II is decidedly not a seminal anything. Yet, thanks to some solid direction and cinematography, Psycho II is at very least an entertaining two-decades-later re-entry into the world of Norman Bates.

For a very basic overview, Psycho II sees Norman (Anthony Perkins) released from the sanitarium after serving many years for his earlier murders. This despite the bemoans of Lila Loomis (Vera Miles), who rails against his return to the old Victorian mansion on the hill. Is Norman truly rehabilitated, or does he still harbor his "private traps" of the past?

A couple of things lend Psycho II instant credibility (and largely carry the load here):

-First, the return of Perkins as Norman Bates. Without his presence, this project is dead in the water. He does a solid job of playing an extremely conflicted Norman, both tortured by past memories yet trying to get back on the right mental track. In a much smaller sense, the Vera Miles role is also a nice nod to the 1960 original.

-Secondly, director Richard Franklin and perhaps especially DP Dean Cundey (Halloween '78 already under his belt and Back to the Future '85 to come) know how to utilize the Bates Motel and Victorian home as characters in and of themselves. Such iconography can harbor a great amount of viewer goodwill and those filmmakers take full advantage. There are shots here that Hitchcock (master as he was) could only dream of. A real visual treat.

Yet, Psycho II is no all-time classic. It is extremely slow-paced (bordering on boring on occasion) and the film's "big reveals" are often not handled as dramatically as they could have been. This renders a really compelling idea much blander than it should have been. The ending (which I won't spoil here) is extremely controversial and will turn many viewers off to the film entirely. Part of me fully understands that endgame critique (it truly is pandering to franchise-making), but it is at very least shocking and works relatively well in-universe for the whole "Bates business", so to speak.

Thus, I clock Psycho II as a solid-though-in-no-way-spectacular 6/10 star unlikely sequel to one of the stalwart thriller/horror films of all time. For all the plot and pacing warts, the filmmakers here are smart enough to realize that the thematic throwbacks to the original, the Bates Motel iconography, and Perkins back in the turtleneck-and-vest Norman role are enough to make the film baseline entertaining and simply don't foul that up.

Safe to say that Psycho II suffers from all the prejudices possible. Numberless elements could be used as an excuse to avoid this movie and to place it among other pointless and money-making sequels. Brought out 22 years after the original masterpiece by Hitchcock himself, I can imagine that many fans refuse to give a subjective look at it. Very wrong, though!! Number two is a very worthy and underrated sequel, which brings perfect homage to the Master of Suspense best film. Even though Franklin can't fully live up to Hitchcock's style, he shows a pretty intense and mind-blowing story here. Franklin obviously worships Hitchcock (which was also clear in one of his previous films - Patrick) and this sequels is made with nothing but respect and goodwill. The very creative script - written by Tom Holland - has more than enough positive aspects and perplexing twists to consider the entire movie a triumph. Sure, some of the twists are far-fetched but overall the continuation of the Psycho couldn't be better. It actually takes place 22 years later with Norman Bates judged sane and released from the mental institution. Some people immediately want to forgive and forget but some others are convinced that Norman will soon go crazy again. This last group of people also has a complete plan worked out to make Norman snap again. Soon there are people dying again in the infamous Bates ' Motel but who is the vicious murderer this time??? Psycho II manages to keep you guessing the entire movie and the terrific acting performance by Anthony Perkins keeps you even closer to the screen. If you were a fan of the original masterpiece ( and I can't imagine anyone isn't a fan of that ), make sure you catch this sequel too!! There were made two more sequels after this but you can easily skip then....and whatever you do...keep your hands off the Gus Van Sant remake of 1998. I wish I had!!

The 1960 'Psycho' is one of Alfred Hitchcock's greatest films and while it is high up in my list of "scariest films of all time" it doesn't stop it from being a personal favourite. Mainly for the cinematography, Hitchcock's direction, the music score and Anthony Perkins.

Hearing that 'Psycho' had three sequels, my immediate reaction was what's the point especially considering the fiasco that was the 1998 remake. It did strike me initially that 'Psycho' was perfect as it was and didn't need a sequel, let alone three as well as a telefilm spin-off and remake. The first sequel, finally getting round to watching the sequels after a little arm twisting, turned out to be surprisingly good. Not just being a worthy follow-up but also a well above average film in its own way. Is it as good as Hitchcock's film? Not a chance, not as scary or as suspenseful. But considering that expectations were dubious 'Psycho II' was so much better than expected.

'Psycho II' starts to drag ever so slightly towards the end and occasionally feels a touch over-plotted. Sadly too the ending is ridiculous and undermines the actually very neat execution of the rest of the film.

On the other hand, 'Psycho II' boasts some very stylish and moody cinematography and the setting is still eerie even in colour. Jerry Goldsmith proves himself to be a more than worthy successor to Bernard Hermann, enormous shoes to fill considering Hermann's score in the 1960 film is one of the most iconic chilling music scores in cinema. Goldsmith's score here is lush and ominously haunting without ever intruding.

Franklin directs beautifully, having a real knack for creating a creepy atmosphere and suspenseful touch, not quite the unequalled Hitchcockian touch but it is the closest the sequels ever get to having anything resembling it. The script is clever and taut with some touches of darkly wicked humour, while the story is on the most part very neatly paced, highly atmospheric and always coherent with some very imaginative twists.

As for the performances, they are also strong. Anthony Perkins returns in his most iconic role and proves that only one person can play this character. Meg Tilly and Vera Miles are very credible too while Dennis Franz and Robert Loggia provide some necessary grit.

In summary, surprisingly good and worthy first sequel to a classic. Doesn't disgrace it at all. 7/10 Bethany Cox