TheRetroCritic

Psycho-themed ad for my Patreon .

The famously confrontational Joan Crawford and Bette Davis duo finally shared the screen in What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? , a 1962 horror thriller directed by Robert Aldrich. The making of the film is the subject of new FX series Feud starring Jessica Lange and Susan Sarandon. Like a cross between Sunset Boulevard and Psycho , What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? explores themes like madness, jealousy and guilt in a Hollywood setting as Bette Davis' ex child star "Baby" Jane Hudson keeps her disabled sister Blanche (Joan Crawford) imprisoned in their house feeding her rats and scaring the crap out of her. The film first gives us some background on the sisters as we see Baby Jane singing to a crowd of fans very much in her element: she is talented but also a spoiled brat. Blanche, on the other hand, is cast aside by her father who is too busy pushing Jane down the path of stardom. Skip to a few years later and the tables have turned with Blanche being a respected Holl

So they're making a film about Alfred Hitchcock starring Anthony Hopkins as the legendary filmmaker and he looks like this: I honestly can't get over how bad this looks. I mean, have they ever  seen the real Hitchcock? This odd, plasticky fellow above looks more like French right-wing politician Edouard Balladur... Or even... Actually, he looks more like... Ok, to be fair the knife tie thing is pretty clever. Not sure it's clever enough to get me hyped for this one, though. After all, the tagline is "Good evening".

  You know how some sequels really aren't sequels at all but in fact entirely different creations with a familiar title tacked on? Like Halloween III or Exorcist II ? Well, this is one of those movies. Oh sure Brett Easton Ellis' Patrick Bateman appears briefly as part of Mila Kunis' backstory but really, this "All American Girl" sequel to American Psycho is another monster altogether. Actually, this feels much more like another Cruel Intentions sequel or a really, really twisted version of Alexander Payne's Election . I guess there's a serial killer theme to the proceedings but were the killings themselves really the whole point of the American Psycho story? Whatever depth the original had to it is reduced to a very predictable and straight-forward teen movie/thriller/black comedy. So if you can ignore the film's unfortunate attachment to American Psycho, this isn't a bad film. It's not GOOD but as a dark teen movie, it's ok: styli

  Sure there was no need to continue Norman Bates' story...but Psycho IV figures: while we're here, might as well tell the whole bloody thing! And why not indeed, finally we are given a clear depiction of Norman's less-than cuddly childhood. Psycho IV: The Beginning sees Norman being released for a bit and taking the opportunity to call a radio show and tell his whole story. The verdict? For a TV movie this is actually really good and rather compelling from start to finish. As a film, it keeps the focused attention of Psycho II and adds the more modern and more graphic look of Psycho III but still, of course, falls way short of the original film. Norman's flashbacks are often genuinely unpleasant and we once again get to know the character a little bit better. Perkins is, of course, a little older still but does well regardless. Overall, the whole thing is still really only worth a look if you've seen the previous two films and want some Psyc

  Underrated second sequel to Psycho with Anthony Perkins doing a better job than in the previous film, and not only in front of the camera. His directing is obviously filled with Hitchcockian influence and as clunky as it can be, overall he does pretty well. Of course, there are silly moments here and there and it can get kinda messy but it is enjoyable nonetheless. I must warn you though, Psycho III is a very different monster to its predecessors. Psycho II took its flawed character seriously and told his unlikely story in a compassionate way. Sure the ending was silly but for the most part, Psycho II did ok to stay focused. Psycho III however, is classic slasher flick fare: Norman is back to his old tricks and there's no bullshitting around! This third instalment is often seen as the lesser of the Psycho sequels, and wrongly so. For one thing it's infinitely more entertaining than Psycho II and Perkins clearly has a ball going nuts once again and directing

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

A film so classic reviewing it is almost redundant, Psycho remains to this day one of The Master's finest hours and one of the best horror films ever. Over the following years Psycho was much imitated, continued, even cloned (!) but you can't touch the original and nothing has even come close since to match Hitchcock's unsettling masterpiece. Every frame is carefully crafted and Janet Leigh's famously early demise is as infamous and delightful as ever. It is however Anthony Perkins' haunting portrayal of a quietly disturbed Norman Bates which steals the show: this is one of the great performances and wannabe bad-guys should watch it on a loop thereby learning a few things about creating a convincing and most definitely not hammy antagonist. The reveal at the end may not quite carry the punch it once had and the doctor's simplistic and over-indulgent explanation at the end is always somewhat tedious but as a whole, this is an unavoidable classic

Jeffrey Combs gives an iconic performance as the creepy doctor convinced he can re-animate the dead with a fluorescent serum which has NEVER worked properly. And although his serum backfires every single time, he still has that quiet, cool demeanor throughout, as if he knows what he's doing (he doesn't: he's insane). A hugely entertaining and creative take on the Frankenstein story (with the Psycho music theme, strangely), Re-Animator is pretty perfect as a horror film and its cult status is well deserved. The great premise is fully taken advantage of with a rampaging killer cat (lol), a talking severed head and countless other classic morgue moments. As derivative as it is, Re-Animator feels completely original and the whole thing is actually pretty stylish and well made. It's not particularly scary but it stays very tongue-in-cheek throughout and a lot of it is just very funny. Overall, this is a must-see for any horror B movie fan and anyone who&

Strangely underrated adaptation of Brett Easton Ellis' grim and gory novel, American Psycho is a stylish black comedy with a welcome touch of twisted madness. Christian Bale has never been better than as Patrick Bateman: the smooth yet rotten and, ultimately, criminally demented Wall Street Genesis fan is a complex character to pull off but he does so effortlessly. The film itself looks super-slick and feels just as classy and wicked as its main protagonist. Bateman's restrained fits of jealousy and meticulous approach to serial killing, not to mention his interactions with fellow yuppies being highlights. More of a black comedy with blood than a straight-up slasher film, American Psycho is still an unpleasant enough tale to qualify as a horror. Even if the film is considerably less gruesome than the novel, the right atmosphere and overall spirit of the book is brilliantly captured here. All in all, well worth seeing if only to see Christian Bale's tour d

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