Psycho (1998 Version)
Hmmm. Not a fan.
What Rocked
From the opening credits, this movie did a ridiculously good job at mimicking the tiniest details of Hitchcock's film. The dialogue, the sets, even the exact motions of Norman when he is cleaning up the body were identical to the original. Gus Van Sant must have watched the original four million times to get the details so perfectly. It was neat to watch--at first. I'll get more into that later.
Yay for sound mixing! In our modern movie world we now have better technology and new skills to make the sound in movies more realistic and effective. This movie still used the suspenseful EEE EEE EEE EEE, but they were able to incorporate plenty of background noise and such into the "lighter" scenes so that I didn't have that same "omg that's enough" feeling that I did with the first one.
I liked the idea of making Sam a cowboy (although cowboy Sam and the motel reminded me too much of Fool For Love-- and brought back some awful memories of film class...). I also liked the sister better. Julianne Moore is a respectable actress I think--no Cate Blanchette, but still good. I think her character had a nice edge to her which made her more interesting.
The gore, though more graphic than in the original, was still not nearly as awful as I thought it would be. The shower scene actually looked much more realistic than the first one (yay for there being more than 3 drops of blood after being stabbed like a dozen times!). Even the cuts on the P.I.'s face weren't enough to bother my overly-squeemish self.
I think the film had a much faster pace than the original, which is good because there is no point in dragging it out when the secret is already spoiled (even Hitchcock wouldn't be able to hide the ending of a remake...or would he?)
What Blew
I appreciate the care and precision used to recreate the smallest details of Hitchcock's world...BUT WHY? Why remake a movie and do it exactly the same way, with a few added--and unnecessarily disturbing-- traits? I was not surprised that there was more nudity. Welcome to modern movies. And I did not mind seeing Vigo Mortenson's tushie one little bit. But the masturbating scene? Really? Like it wasn't enough that Norman was a dirty little peeping tom--he also has to molest himself in order to get a strong effect. Have we really become that desensitized to perversion?
For the real WTF moment--William H. Macy's death. So he gets sliced in the face...and falls down the stairs. But wait... WTF are those little snippets of scenes before he falls? Even when Anne Heche was being brutalized there were images of like a storm or something, but those didn't bother me so much. When Macy dies there's a naked woman in a mask...and then a cow on a street....WTF?! The trailer for the movie (which is in the special features of the DVD, but I can't seem to find it online anywhere) seems to say that those images are in Norman's mind, but the movie makes no such connection.
What Others Thought
What Else You Should Know
According to the behind the scenes stuff on the DVD, Van Sant was so crazy meticulous about the details that he even stuck in any errors from the first film, such as doors being opened without being unlocked and stuff. I suggest watching the special features for this one. I think they were more enjoyable than the film.
What Rocked
From the opening credits, this movie did a ridiculously good job at mimicking the tiniest details of Hitchcock's film. The dialogue, the sets, even the exact motions of Norman when he is cleaning up the body were identical to the original. Gus Van Sant must have watched the original four million times to get the details so perfectly. It was neat to watch--at first. I'll get more into that later.
Yay for sound mixing! In our modern movie world we now have better technology and new skills to make the sound in movies more realistic and effective. This movie still used the suspenseful EEE EEE EEE EEE, but they were able to incorporate plenty of background noise and such into the "lighter" scenes so that I didn't have that same "omg that's enough" feeling that I did with the first one.
I liked the idea of making Sam a cowboy (although cowboy Sam and the motel reminded me too much of Fool For Love-- and brought back some awful memories of film class...). I also liked the sister better. Julianne Moore is a respectable actress I think--no Cate Blanchette, but still good. I think her character had a nice edge to her which made her more interesting.
The gore, though more graphic than in the original, was still not nearly as awful as I thought it would be. The shower scene actually looked much more realistic than the first one (yay for there being more than 3 drops of blood after being stabbed like a dozen times!). Even the cuts on the P.I.'s face weren't enough to bother my overly-squeemish self.
I think the film had a much faster pace than the original, which is good because there is no point in dragging it out when the secret is already spoiled (even Hitchcock wouldn't be able to hide the ending of a remake...or would he?)
What Blew
I appreciate the care and precision used to recreate the smallest details of Hitchcock's world...BUT WHY? Why remake a movie and do it exactly the same way, with a few added--and unnecessarily disturbing-- traits? I was not surprised that there was more nudity. Welcome to modern movies. And I did not mind seeing Vigo Mortenson's tushie one little bit. But the masturbating scene? Really? Like it wasn't enough that Norman was a dirty little peeping tom--he also has to molest himself in order to get a strong effect. Have we really become that desensitized to perversion?
For the real WTF moment--William H. Macy's death. So he gets sliced in the face...and falls down the stairs. But wait... WTF are those little snippets of scenes before he falls? Even when Anne Heche was being brutalized there were images of like a storm or something, but those didn't bother me so much. When Macy dies there's a naked woman in a mask...and then a cow on a street....WTF?! The trailer for the movie (which is in the special features of the DVD, but I can't seem to find it online anywhere) seems to say that those images are in Norman's mind, but the movie makes no such connection.
What Others Thought
- No Oscar nods for this one...but it did win two Razzies...ouch.
- RottenTomatoes offers a brutal 36%, saying "Van Sant's pointless remake neither improves or illuminates Hitchcock's original."
- Peter Brunette of Film.com captures my sentiments exactly: "So much of Van Sant's 'new' version of the classic remains the same that you sit there shaking your head, mumbling, why, oh, why?" I don't know, Pete. I just don't know.
- Another had-to-put quotes, this time from the Washington Post: "This Psycho seems a little nuts." Doesn't say much, but it made me giggle.
- The New York Times seemed to enjoy it: "It remains the most structurally elegant and sneakily playful of thrillers. At least some things never change."
What Else You Should Know
According to the behind the scenes stuff on the DVD, Van Sant was so crazy meticulous about the details that he even stuck in any errors from the first film, such as doors being opened without being unlocked and stuff. I suggest watching the special features for this one. I think they were more enjoyable than the film.
Wait a second, is that Vince Vaughn playing the character Norman Bates? I haven’t seen this version so I have to wonder how convincing his character was. I am so use to him playing this sarcastic man whose comments can cut deep. He always keeps a straight face—then again, no emotion can make a perfect psycho. Your blog is very interesting.
ReplyDeleteI recently saw the 1979 version of The Amityville Horror. I have seen the 2005 version a million times already and after seeing this one, I am not sure which one I like better. They both were equally scary to me, so I guess the 2005 version is going to have to take the prize because of Ryan Reynolds ;)
Hey HairFlip! Thanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Vince Vaughn was the psycho and I was not feeling it. He didn't have the sarcasm, but his comments still cut deep. He was too direct and strong. He just didn't have that shy, creepy thing that made the original great. He was just creepy. I liked the subtle craziness that built up in the Perkin's portrayal of the character.
I loved the Ryan Reynold's version of Amityville horror, and that's saying a lot because I am no fan of the horror genre (I get scared at Disney movies...). I haven't seen the original, but now that you brought it up I may have to check it out!!