Psycho (1998)

[zombie no.one]

I recently re-watched the original (which I've only seen a couple of times before, and probably not in the last 20 yrs?), and was struck by how brilliantly it holds up. It is amazing.

so I decided to rewatch the remake, which I only saw once when it came out, and remember disliking, but I wanted to see it again to get a fresh perspective.

ANd the answer is no. no. no..... WHY? why did this happen. Why did they think you could have a shot-for-shot remake and not end up with a completely redundant 100 minutes of movie?

The ONLY reason this could've been justified is if the original was deeply flawed in some way, but the original is a masterpiece.

The good thing about this remake is that, whereas the phrase "style over substance" is usually how the criticism goes, it proves that 'style' may have a lot more importance in comparison to 'substance' (i.e. content) than we give credit for... they made basically exactly the same film, and it's a shadow of the original.

Apparently Tarantino said he prefers the remake, but I think he's just trying to be 'cool'

[RCMerchant]

...and what's up with the cows?

[zelmo73]

The same thing happened with The Omen remake. Shot-for-shot redundancy, and like they're really going to improve on Gregory Peck's performance. 

[chainsaw midget]

I just don't understand why this movie even exists. 

As much as I usually hate the ideas, I can understand people that remake movie but want to take it in a different direction or want to update it for the times, but this... this did neither. 

[zombie no.one]

it's baffling! it doesn't even work in a postmodern sense

The same thing happened with The Omen remake. Shot-for-shot redundancy, and like they're really going to improve on Gregory Peck's performance. 

wow I forgot about that. another crapstorm

[claws]

Most pointless remake ever. Great cast, but they couldn't save it.

[Allhallowsday]

... no. no. no..... WHY? why did this happen. Why did they think you could have a shot-for-shot remake and not end up with a completely redundant 100 minutes of movie?...  Apparently Tarantino said he prefers the remake, but I think he's just trying to be 'cool'...

The only thing "memorable" to me about that film was that it starred ANNE HECHE.    I can't stand VINCE VAUGHN maybe that movie is why... (dirtball). 
TARANTINO was an auteur at getting at our imaginary underbellies, but his taste in movies should squarely make him a prominent member of this forum! 

[zombie no.one]

I don't really have anything against Vince Vaughn but he was a lame Norman Bates imo... the climactic final showdown scene was so badly done it was comical.

also, on the original it almost sounded like you could just about believe that Anthony Perkins was doing his own mother's voice... to me it did anyway. Vaughn sounded nothing like his mother.

minor details like that in the remake grated on me as well.

[Gabriel Knight]

It was obviously a clever tactic to get some quick bucks, nobody gave a damn about the whole project. It's our fault for giving our money to these robbers.

[pennywise37]

i've seen this a couple times yeah it's a bad film but i've seen worse than this film and i think the concept on paper anyways, the idea of it to copy a script like that shot for shot isn't a bad idea. but the execution to copy a genius like Hitch it didn't work at all of course,  i haven't seen it in years so i don't  remember that much about it but i liked the idea of shooting the Original script but to copy hitch was a mistake. 

Anne Heche though was a bad choice that i thought was terrible when they first announced it. Vince Vaughn i thought he was fine in it but if i see this again that may change.   notice i didn't say Brilliant cause i like him as an actor but he hasn't really done much outside of comedy in recent years to show his how good he can be as an actor in recent years as far as i know.

i do think that Gus Van Saint did try to copy Hitch way to much and though he is a talented filmmaker s well hitch was in my opinion anyways a Genius.  not everyone agrees with me on that and that's fine.

[zombie no.one]

before watching it I read a review that said Anne Heche looked like a blonde Pee Wee Herman, and then I couldn't unsee it  

Janet Leigh is stunningly attractive in the original imo

[pennywise37]

see i like her as an actress as she can be good but she is simply terrible if i recall in the film and that short hair she had at the time doesn't fit the role either.

i don't hate the film like many seem to but as i  said there are far worse movies than this one, blonde pee herman i don't remember that review but than i don't remember reviews for any movie.

this is my take on it anyways if anyone goes to watch this if they haven't seen it go in with really low expectations. sometimes it's not so much the script or the direction but the casting can hurt the film and Anne Heche was a huge mistake to cast her in this.  Vince Vaughn was pretty decent in this now don't get me wrong he'll never be as good as Anthony Perkins hell no but honestly it could have been a hell of a lot worse in casting well that's how i look at it anyways