TheRetroCritic

£15?!  Sure HMV.  YOU give me £15 and I'll consider buying the f***ing Quickening. Again...

Comedy sequels are a hard one. If any comedy shows any sign of popularity you can bet that an inferior sequel is just around the corner ready to rack up the cash once more. Usually three things can happen: 1/ They get it right in that they expand on the story/characters, bring something new to the table and still create something fun and original ( Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey , American Pie 2 , Austin Powers 2 , Wayne's World 2 ...) 2/ They get it almost right, in other words the filmmakers didn't quite get what people liked about the first film so they did pretty much the same thing but with slight differences or a different setting. Usually that doesn't quite work but makes the sequel feel fresh enough that fans of the original film can still enjoy it ( Ace Ventura 2 , Ghostbusters 2 ...) 3/ They get it wrong...( Splash Too ) Hangover II falls under the second category: more of the same but oddly considerably darker and...in Thailand. This time Stu (Ed Hel

Surprisingly watchable sequel with an ageing Anthony Perkins twitching his way through his fading sanity. There are clumsy, dated effects, although they add comedy value (the knife through the mouth is always a winner) and the ending is somewhat rushed but the film is saved by some clever shots and an interesting enough storyline. But seriously now: who asked for a Psycho sequel? Granted there was a sequel to Bloch's novel but waiting until right after Alfred Hitchcock's death to step on his feet feels somewhat unnecessary and kinda sneaky. Sure there's enough in Norman Bate's release from the institution to tell a story, it's just not a story we really needed to be told. Besides, 23 years is a very long gap between both films and attempting to match the original's class, style and mood so late in the game is futile to say the least. Then again, after the initial feeling of WTF, once you get into Norman's more personal story you soon find