Still asking myself WHY?

I think the winner is pretty obvious so I won't bother with a drum roll. Hitchcock's version was so good Van Sant really had nothing to improve upon.

Psycho (1960) wins hands down.

Differences That Mattered

• Nice try Vincey. He looked slim, but still didn't capture that same essence that made Norman Bates so freaking creepy. I think Vaughn is too straight-forward to be able to keep his insanity a secret. It just didn't work for me and I feel that if I hadn't known the ending I would have picked up on his craziness right away.
  
• So Van Sant spent all this time and energy making all these minute details match the original...and then he goes and adds the most ridiculous and unnecessary things. The masturbating, the weird clips...why? It's like let's take this masterpiece and then smear poo on certain pieces. I just do not understand it. At all.

I think Ken Marks at the New Yorker had the perfect question: "If the original did not exist, would this picture be worth seeing?" If we didn't have the marvelous original to hold this one up against, would this be appreciated more? Or would Van Sant's changes blur the genius of the plot? I guess we'll never know, and I'm glad for that.