PUNTUACIÓN EN IMDb
4,6/10
51 mil
TU PUNTUACIÓN
Una joven desfalcadora llega al motel Bates, que como ella esconde terribles secretos.Una joven desfalcadora llega al motel Bates, que como ella esconde terribles secretos.Una joven desfalcadora llega al motel Bates, que como ella esconde terribles secretos.
- Premios
- 4 premios y 6 nominaciones
James Le Gros
- Car Dealer
- (as James LeGros)
Argumento
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesIn Psicosis (1960), Sir Alfred Hitchcock wanted his opening shot to be a long, complete pan and zoom over the city into Marion's hotel room. Sadly, the technology was not yet perfected, and he achieved his effect through a series of pans and dissolves. The remake does a complete travelling shot, as Hitchcock had intended.
- PifiasSome continuity errors were deliberately included, being copied from the original Psicosis (1960).
- Citas
Norman Bates: A boy's best friend is his mother.
- Créditos adicionalesThanks to John Woo for use of his kitchen knife.
- ConexionesEdited into Tough Guise: Violence, Media & the Crisis in Masculinity (1999)
- Banda sonoraLiving Dead Girl
Written by Rob Zombie, Scott Humphrey
Performed by Rob Zombie
Courtesy of Geffen Records
Under license from Universal Music Special Markets
Reseña destacada
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.
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.
- bob the moo
- 14 jun 2002
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Psycho?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idioma
- Títulos en diferentes países
- Psycho
- Localizaciones del rodaje
- Empresas productoras
- Ver más compañías en los créditos en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- 60.000.000 US$ (estimación)
- Recaudación en Estados Unidos y Canadá
- 21.485.655 US$
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- 10.031.850 US$
- 6 dic 1998
- Recaudación en todo el mundo
- 37.170.655 US$
- Duración1 hora 45 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta
Principal laguna de datos
What was the official certification given to Psycho (Psicosis) (1998) in Japan?
Responde