annuskavdpol A. Hitchcock is the original film-maker of Psycho. However this 1998 re-make is a good map of the original. There are a very details that I do not remember from the original happening. For example, in the 1998 re-make one of female main characters steals $400,000. This detail I do not recall in the original movie. Furthermore, I do not recall from the original that one of the main characters was in an extramarital affair with a man. These 2 elements in the 1998 Psycho seems to (in a way) justify the murder of the main female actress. These components were, as far as I remember not part of the original story. So this contrasts the original story. In the original movie, A. Hitchcock creates a lot of suspense through his sharp camera and cinematic detailing; whereas in the 1998 movie of the same title does not have the same effect on me. In the 1998 Psycho movie, it almost seems like the main female character that gets murdered is somewhat justified because she is an immoral (having an affair with a married man) as well as a criminal (stealing money from her organization) - I do not recall this being the case this the original. (At the same time, I believe Hitchcock was not concerned with moral issues; he was more concerned with film: suspense, camera work and art as a whole - this is a more positive thing to me).

MaximumMadness Director Gus Van Sant's much-maligned 1998 release "Psycho" has gone on to attain great infamy and malice in the world of film. A shot- for- shot remake of the Hitchcock masterpiece, the film was plagued by negative buzz and general dismissal before it was even released, and was eventually met with reaction that ranged from confused apathy to infuriated rage when it finally came out. It was a film that people not only hated... they took active pride and indeed seemed to relish in how much they hated it. Slapping the film with constant insults and questioning over and over why it was "necessary." Chastising it for the futility of doing the exact same thing over again while also bemoaning the few times the film made changes because it was "tampering" with a classic. Suggesting the actors involved never work again for daring to try and replicate the original. People love to hate this film, and it's one of those movies that you're expected to automatically loathe, whether or not you've even seen it. Essentially, it's a film that you're just not allowed to like or enjoy... and if you do, you're simply "wrong."Now don't get me wrong or think I'm in any way building up to an attempt at defending the movie itself. Because I'm not. This is an unnecessary remake of an immortal classic. It does fail to even come close to matching the high quality of the original work. And in the end, it's merely a strange little anecdote in the history of film, that's remembered more for how bizarre it was than for its quality. But I do think the film has some inherent value that makes it more worthwhile than many will give it credit for. And I do think this movie was ultimately something that needed to happen. Because even though the movie itself is a failure and is a wholly mediocre watch when viewed on its own merits, what it represents is a fascinating experiment that presents many hours of thought, discussion and debate.A carbon copy of the original classic, the film follows a group of characters, including an embezzler named Marion Crane (Anne Heche), her sister Lila (Julianne Moore), and Marion's lover Sam (Vigo Mortensen), as they enter an intricate web of death and deceit... all revolving around a troubled motel clerk (Vince Vaughn) with what can only be described as the worst "mommy issues" of all time. Outside of some minor cosmetic changes in dialog and style to bring the film into the 90's, and a few characters being slightly reinterpreted, the film is exactly the same as the one we had seen so long ago. And that seems to be the sort-of point behind the movie. It's as if director Gus Van Sant is playing a carefully crafted game, in which he tries to see if quality can be precisely replicated through reproduction of story, dialog and circumstance. He wants to see if he too can make a classic by just following the blueprints. And that's ultimately the failing of the film- it forgets one key issue. The degree of randomness, spontaneity and pure luck that comes as an organic byproduct of film production is vital, and is a part of what makes a film work. And this is lost when trying to create an exact duplicate. Thus, the remake merely feels pale and lacks humanity. It's almost robotic.But... and this is a very important thing to note... I do think that this was an experiment worth taking, and that in being such a fundamental failure, it teaches many valuable lessons and generates some great points of discussion. The concept of a shot-for-shot remake was altogether foreign at the time of release... even alien in a way. Nobody had really seen it done to such a great extent before. And this movie proved why it is such an inherently flawed idea. You can't replicate genius through almost mathematical duplication. And thus the viewer is left with some genuinely burning questions. When is a remake necessary... or even building on that, when is a film itself necessary? What makes one thing brilliant while another thing trite? How can characters and concepts be interpreted in different ways, and what constitutes the most valid approach to a character or story? I've watched Van Sant's "Psycho" several times, and every time it's finished, I find these thoughts flowing through my mind, eating away at me. The original is just such a tour de force, while the remake falls so flat... It's completely fascinating to me. And I do think that the fact the film leaves me thinking lends it more value than many will credit it for.As a film on its own, it's a 3 out of 10. But the interesting production and discussion it inspires almost make me want to raise the score a bit. I won't for the sake of fairness. But I will encourage people who haven't given the movie a chance or have just dismissed it without seeing it give it another shot. Watch it with a more critical eye and allow it to plant some questions in your mind. It's a failed experiment. But it's also a completely fascinating one that I'm glad exists.

Leofwine_draca Remakes, huh. Who needs them? Especially when they offer absolutely nothing new or different from the original movie, which in this case, didn't require remaking in any case. Director Gus Van Sant shows himself to be a complete idiot with this completely unnecessary updating of the classic horror film which comes off the worst in every respect. Any fan of the first film should definitely avoid this movie - Van Sant claimed he made it because youngsters wouldn't watch black and white movies, but if that's true then they shouldn't bother watching movies full stop. The only major difference between the two versions is the colour anyway, which doesn't really add anything to the film aside from making the murders slightly gorier to look at.The film is technically proficient, but then it would be with Van Sant slavishly COPYING Hitchcock's direction at all times. The only things the director adds to his new version are some pathetically pretentious inserts of clouds and cows during the various murders and a crude openly sexual side to Norman's obsession (which worked better when merely hinted at in the first film). As for the casting, Van Sant has gone out of his way in assembling both popular and talented actors, so we have the notable likes of Julianne Moore, Viggo Mortensen, William H. Macy ,and Robert Forster filling out the supporting roles. As for the leads, well Anne Heche is unlikable as ever and proves herself to be a million miles away from Janet Leigh, whilst Vince Vaughn is creepy enough for the part but again isn't a match for Anthony Perkins in the original.If the original film didn't exist then I would have enjoyed this a lot more. But it does, so the remake is totally without merit and deserves to be forgotten in due course - what on earth was Van Sant thinking in remaking it shot-for-shot? That kind of ruins the idea of a remake in the first place (i.e. to improve and expand upon the original film's limitations), doesn't it? A totally superfluous addition to modern cinema.

Kirpianuscus the purpose of this remake is the red line who challenge the viewer. not the idea to make , shot by shot, same Psycho - it could be a form of homage for the original. not the bizarre choice of Anne Heche for a Marion who remains out of her entire film. not the small details who represents differences by original. maybe, not the colors or acting .but the impression, in few scenes, to be a parody. or childish game. sure, the idea of Gus Van Sant could be noble, generous, exercise to translate in images for new generation a classic gem. but the result is far to be the best. or, maybe, in few moments, decent. something missing. something real important - its soul. a film like a corpse because it not gives more than a kind of experiment, the fight of Ann Heche and Vince Vaughn with too heavy roles. a good point - maybe William Macy to do a credible Arbogast and, sure, Julianne Moore noble intentions.