PSYCHO (1998) - REVIEW
Remaking classic horror films is now, of course, a common Hollywood trend. But back in 1998 such a thing was still regarded as sacrilege. And rightly so. As talented as a director Gus Van Sant may be, he is no Alfred Hitchcock. And remaking one of the latter's most beloved films almost shot for shot is not so much a hommage as it is an insult.
Watching this remake is like watching someone butcher a classic. Not that it's a bad film, overall this new Psycho is pretty stylish and entertaining. But it just feels completely pointless and Vince Vaughn, as amusing as he may occasionally be, is not Anthony Perkins and he most certainly isn't Norman Bates. His Norman is bland, barely threatening and unconvincing.
The rest of the cast does reasonably well but one could argue that there's very little challenge there when their jobs were essentially done 38 years ago...better. Van Sant's Psycho is worth seeing if you're a fan of the original and you feel curious but it won't make you happy. Quite the opposite. May I suggest the Psycho sequels instead? At least they boasted some shred of originality.
As visually pleasing as this remake may be, it is also a complete waste of time and worth a look only if you dislike watching black and white films...which is stupid.
Go watch Hitchcock's Psycho, this is not it.
There was something pretty irresistible about the first Kung Fu Panda film. Seemingly a dull, same-old same-old kiddie animation, it was a...
With Bane and Catwoman taking on The Bat this month, I thought I'd take a quick look back at my own favourite Batman villains. Bear in m...
Widely recognised as THE worst Spider-Man film to date, Spider-Man 3 was Sam Raimi's final outing as the Marvel hero's puppetmas...