'PSYCHO' SUCKS!!!
Phineas Narco
building up some pretty good RPM's right about now.
Psycho has been sequelized, cable-TV prequelized, made into a
short-lived TV series, and now it's been remade. Someone in Hollywood
keeps trying to franchize this movie with some pretty bad results.
What's next, are we going to have a video game and Taco Bell designer
glasses?
Frankly I had my doubts when I heard they were remaking Psycho.
It was like someone remaking the Wizard of Oz or Citizen Kane. How can
you improve on perfection?
Keep in mind that in 1960 no one had seen anything quite like
Psycho. It left audiences breathless. Movie-goers were not allowed
into the theater after it started. There were stories of people
fainting and having heart attacks.
But what kind of impact is the story of a psychotic little mama's
boy like Norman Bates going to have on the desensitized audiences of
1998 when we've seen Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer and countless other
serial-killers-of-the-week not to mention hundreds of slasher movies?
To devotees of the original film, Psycho (the new movie) proceeds
like a recurring dream. But this time around it's as if you had too
much pizza to eat the night before.
For one thing the pacing is all wrong. Hitchcock had this way of
allowing these exquisitely-timed pregnant silences between the lines
that were even more important than the lines themselves. He let you
*savor* the anxiety. That is called... 'suspense'.
Here, everything is rushed and clipped, as if everyone's had one
too many latte's at Starbucks before going on the set and can hardly
wait to hurry onto the next scene. Perhaps the makers of the film
thought that today's modern audiences cornfed on too much MTV wouldn't
have the attention span to sit through a dramatic pause or two.
Even the new Norman seems 'on something'. Perhaps those candies
he munches on obsessively are actually No-Doz tablets. Compared to
Anthony Perkins' studied portrayal of a pent-up, nervously withdrawn
and stammering recluse, the 'new' Norman seems positively manic.
Flashing wicked smiles and winks as he flirts and mugs, and
throwing off glib one-liners like "You have a wonderful quality about
you that puts guys at ease", he's so cocksure and bristling with
energy, you wonder what he's doing wasting his life in the middle of
nowhere. He should be in Hollywood somewhere pitching horrible movies
like this one.
Another major problem with this story is that it doesn't belong
in 1998. I thought 'well maybe they're remaking it because they want
to modernize the tale' after all the ad copy says 'A modern vision of
the original classic'. But since 95% of the script is taken verbatim
from the original script the 'modern vision' seems to consist of
afterthought touches like Lila Crane saying "Wait, let me grab my
walkman" before her and Sam go to see the sheriff. What?? What does
her walkman have to do with anything??
The dialogue is fraught with embarassing anachronisms. One
example is the used car saleman saying to Marion, "You have a right to
do anything you have a mind to, being a woman, you will". That sort of
line in 1960 might have been flattering, today it sounds like
chauvanistic condescension. The sweating actor who delivers it
actually looks embarassed at the lines coming out of his mouth.
I should have asked for my money back at the theater, because I
paid to see a horror movie and I got a comedy. I lost track of how
many times the audience laughed, tittered, giggled and openly jeered
at scenes that should have been steeped in suspense and horror. Van
Sant tries to make it shocking enough for today's sensibilities, but
the results are unintentionally humorous. The only time the movie
works is as camp, and sometimes I truly wondered if it was intended
that way.
For example, when Norman pulls back the picture to gaze at Marion
undressing through his peephole, Van Sant actually inserts the
whap-whap-whap sound of him masturbating. The audience howled like it
was a scene out of Porky's. I almost walked out at that point, but I
wanted to see what he did with the shower scene. (Answer: it raises an
eyebrow but is hardly worth waiting for).
I kept waiting for Van Sant to GO somewhere with the material.
What he was going to do with the story? It would have been interesting
to see the makers of this film truly rework it from the ground up
instead of just adding a few modern technical touches.
For instance, instead of Sam living on a cot in the back of a
hardware store, what if he was sleeping on his buddy's couch and
working at a temp job at Manpower? Doesn't that seem to make more
sense in today's world?
Or why not have Arbogast (the private detective played by William
Macy) be a woman? It would have been interesting to see Kathy Bates
put Norman Bates on the spot, but I guess that would have required too
many rewrites.
The plot is also seeded with logic problems when told in a modern
setting:
For example, why would Sam and Marion have a tryst in a hotel at
the beginning of the movie? In 1960 it would be because they wouldn't
want to start a scandal. Today they would just have sex at her house.
The neighbors wouldn't even notice. Why rent a room?
Why is Arbogast wearing such a ridiculous hat? So he can look
more like a private detective? Who wears hats anymore?
Why in the world would a millionaire throw around $400,000 in
cash in today's world of ATM check cards and internet banking? To
avoid paying taxes, he declares for all the world to hear and casually
hands it to the secretary. What?? Would this EVER happen? The IRS
would be on him like flies on Mrs. Bates' corpse and no reputable bank
would do business that way. Doesn't this little plot point need SOME
kind of rewrite to make it believable nowadays?
On the bright side however, there is one nice thing that came out
of the movie and that is Danny Elfman's adapted soundtrack of Bernard
Herrman's score. It sounds wonderful. I was just sorry I had to be
watching this movie while listening to it. Indeed the score has been
imitated so much since the 1960's it seems campy in the context of a
modern movie..
Another interesting note is that Van Sant managed to find an actor
that looks almost exactly like the cop in the original version to play
the same role for this one. The weird thing is he has a voice like a
someone with a hormone condition talking through a voice synthesizer.
I see the original Hitchcock classic as sort of like Hamlet. This
movie is like a bad junior high school production of it. It's problem
when retold in the modern age is that, like Hamlet, it's wrought with
many since-told 'cliches'.
Let's face it, when it comes to movies about psychotic murderers,
today's audiences have seen it all. (How many times have we seen the
shower scene ripped off?). The irony is, those who have never seen the
original Psycho probably don't know that the slasher movie moves
they've seen so many times can be traced back to just the film they're
watching a bastardized version of. The tragedy is, after seeing this
one first, they've rather spoiled their enjoyment of seeing the
original.
Please, please, please, if you have not seen the original Psycho
do NOT, I repeat DO NOT watch this one. Save your seven and a half
bucks and go rent the original for a dollar at Blockbuster's.
I had hopes for this movie and still think it might have been at
least an interesting remake if completely reworked and reinterpreted
under the hand of a more disturbed director like John McNaughton or
David Lynch or (for goodness sakes did anyone ever consider) Brian
DePalma.
But maybe well enough should just be left alone, the way it is.
Better to just leave the movie as the classic it is, preserved in
time. . . sort of like one of Norman's stuffed birds.
Crisalis3
<snip>
> Or why not have Arbogast (the private detective played by William
>Macy) be a woman? It would have been interesting to see Kathy Bates
>put Norman Bates on the spot, but I guess that would have required too
>many rewrites.
<snip>
Hi,
That comment alone should get a Standing O.
Kathy would have been brilliant as Arbogast,
and that would be a "90s" twist that would be
worth seeing.
A friend of mine had the idea that Sam Loomis
could have been Samantha Loomis, to play up
the lesbian angle that Van Sant was aiming for
with a butchier Lila. (Kyra Sedgwick was his
idea of a good Samantha Loomis btw.)
Thanks for an excellent review of the film
and many insightful comments.
``Cris`` [Butterfly in progress] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
* agc's Good Sam Spice: Never underestimate the ^^^^^^^^^
power of words to heal, the power of words to harm. ^^^^^^^
MasonBarge
>could have been Samantha Loomis
ROFL! Why not ELLEN!!!!!!!!!!
- Mason Barge
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me
some coffee." -- Abraham Lincoln
James Futch
back from viewing this travesty and well, I thought it was so bad that
it defies description. Even if it were a stand alone film and not a
remake I would think it stank.
Twice I nearly walked out. But I knew that I wouldn't have a leg to
stand on in bashing it unless I endured the whole thing. Endured. That
seemed to be the key word the entire time I was watching it. Because it
was almost painful. I felt embarrassed for the actors, the rest of the
audience, and even for the foolish Gus Van Sant.
Did he just do this just because he had some money and time to waste?
It seems that way, given the apparent lack of thought and creativity put
into it. Like you said, if the people involved had taken Robert Bloch's
source material and given us their interpretation of it then that might
have been something worthwhile. But instead, they just put together
this lazy piece of crap. And if indeed we are to believe the flimsy
justification for remaking Psycho was that it would be updated for the
90's, here are some of the more irritating details that could have used
some serious reworking:
- Why the hell wouldn't even a dive like the Bates Motel (as depicted
here) have a little computer or cash register???
- what the hell is Norman doing drilling holes in walls in this day and
age??? With a Radio Shack on every corner, he could have set up a little
survellience camera in every cabin in the whole motel!!!
-why the hell would Arbogast assume Bates had slept with Marion just
because of Bates's assertion that she hadn't made phone calls??? Don't
motels in the 90's have the technology to know who called who so they
could charge you when you check out???
-in an age of forensic investigation, Bates would have to be plain
retarded to believe that his half assed clean up of the bathroom would
hide the murder! Instead of appearing super efficient like he did in
1960, he appears rather sloppy here in the cleaning up.
-why the hell would the sheriff's wife need the operator (who she knows
by first name) to connect her to the Bates Motel? She can't just dial
direct like people have been doing for 30 years???
-why the hell would the psychiatrist need to explain a damn thing anyway
in this age of modern psychology when we've seen it all-from alien
abductees to transsexual lesbian animal husbandry pedophiles???
The list actually could go on but I'll stop here.
Finally, why the bloody hell would Norman still kill Marion in the
shower AFTER he's finished whacking off? You would think the pent up
sexual energy that drives this sort of crime would be out of his system
(and on the carpet and wall). If so, then the only believable thing he
could have done at this point would be to collapse on the floor and take
a nap.
But I wouldn't expect Van Sant to know that. Look how much thought he
put into the rest of the film.
Great review though! Look below if you haven't read it.
James
Reagen Sulewski
wrote:
>What a brilliant review. It's like you're reading my mind. I just got
>back from viewing this travesty and well, I thought it was so bad that
>it defies description. Even if it were a stand alone film and not a
>remake I would think it stank.
>Twice I nearly walked out. But I knew that I wouldn't have a leg to
>stand on in bashing it unless I endured the whole thing. Endured. That
>seemed to be the key word the entire time I was watching it. Because it
>was almost painful. I felt embarrassed for the actors, the rest of the
>audience, and even for the foolish Gus Van Sant.
>Did he just do this just because he had some money and time to waste?
>It seems that way, given the apparent lack of thought and creativity put
>into it. Like you said, if the people involved had taken Robert Bloch's
>source material and given us their interpretation of it then that might
>have been something worthwhile. But instead, they just put together
>this lazy piece of crap. And if indeed we are to believe the flimsy
>justification for remaking Psycho was that it would be updated for the
>90's, here are some of the more irritating details that could have used
>some serious reworking:
>
>- Why the hell wouldn't even a dive like the Bates Motel (as depicted
>here) have a little computer or cash register???
If you'll notice, the motel wasn't exactly doing gangbuster buisness.
>- what the hell is Norman doing drilling holes in walls in this day and
>age??? With a Radio Shack on every corner, he could have set up a little
>survellience camera in every cabin in the whole motel!!!
See above. Also, he's not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, to
make a bad pun.
>-why the hell would Arbogast assume Bates had slept with Marion just
>because of Bates's assertion that she hadn't made phone calls??? Don't
>motels in the 90's have the technology to know who called who so they
>could charge you when you check out???
It's not a cause and effect. He thought that Marion was somehow using
Bates to hide her. This was also his first meeting with Bates. It
woudl have been incredible foresight to supeona (sp?) the phone
records of each and every motel in the Fairvale area without knowing
which motel she had stayed at.
>-in an age of forensic investigation, Bates would have to be plain
>retarded to believe that his half assed clean up of the bathroom would
>hide the murder! Instead of appearing super efficient like he did in
>1960, he appears rather sloppy here in the cleaning up.
Well then he should have just left all the blood there, since it's no
use in even trying.
>-why the hell would the sheriff's wife need the operator (who she knows
>by first name) to connect her to the Bates Motel? She can't just dial
>direct like people have been doing for 30 years???
An anacronism from the original script. No idea why it wasn't changed.
Possibly your only legit gripe.
>-why the hell would the psychiatrist need to explain a damn thing anyway
>in this age of modern psychology when we've seen it all-from alien
>abductees to transsexual lesbian animal husbandry pedophiles???
They didn't actually -know- that Norman was a paranoid schizophernic
(or multiple personality disorder, whichever you prefer). This at
minimum would have to be confirmed.
>
>
>The list actually could go on but I'll stop here.
>Finally, why the bloody hell would Norman still kill Marion in the
>shower AFTER he's finished whacking off? You would think the pent up
>sexual energy that drives this sort of crime would be out of his system
>(and on the carpet and wall). If so, then the only believable thing he
>could have done at this point would be to collapse on the floor and take
>a nap.
It's called an Oedipus complex. He felt intense guilt at attraction to
any woman other than his mother, and in such, the 'mother' personality
took over after such incidents.
>But I wouldn't expect Van Sant to know that. Look how much thought he
>put into the rest of the film.
You obviously didn't pay that much attention to the movie.
MasonBarge
>>age??? With a Radio Shack on every corner, he could have set up a little
>>survellience camera in every cabin in the whole motel!!!
>
>See above. Also, he's not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, to make a
bad pun.
MOAN!!!!!!!!! Disclaimer insufficient!
Actually, Norman is a reasonably clever guy in a lot of ways. I agree that
this motel wouldn't necessarily have a cash register, and a camera just
wouldn't have worked psychologically -- it just wouldn't be right, he wouldn't
have been looking at HER -- but this is still a fault.
Also, the holes weren't "drilled in the wall" and weren't exactly pinholes,
they were giant gaping ripped holes. Like a woman in the shower isn't going to
notice a big hole in the wall?
Michael Adams
Crisalis3 wrote in message
<19981205094348...@ng-cc1.aol.com>...
> A friend of mine had the idea that Sam Loomis
>could have been Samantha Loomis, to play up
>the lesbian angle that Van Sant was aiming for
>with a butchier Lila. (Kyra Sedgwick was his
>idea of a good Samantha Loomis btw.)
Actually, this was indeed considered - but Van Sant decided not to go
with it. And yes, Lila was supposed to be a lesbian...
-Mike
Reagen Sulewski
>>- what the hell is Norman doing drilling holes in walls in this day and
>>>age??? With a Radio Shack on every corner, he could have set up a little
>>>survellience camera in every cabin in the whole motel!!!
>>
>>See above. Also, he's not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, to make a
>bad pun.
>
>MOAN!!!!!!!!! Disclaimer insufficient!
>
>Actually, Norman is a reasonably clever guy in a lot of ways. I agree that
>this motel wouldn't necessarily have a cash register, and a camera just
>wouldn't have worked psychologically -- it just wouldn't be right, he wouldn't
>have been looking at HER -- but this is still a fault.
>
>Also, the holes weren't "drilled in the wall" and weren't exactly pinholes,
>they were giant gaping ripped holes. Like a woman in the shower isn't going to
>notice a big hole in the wall?
>- Mason Barge
It's also a fault of the original then, I didn't notice a significant
difference in the sizes of the hole between this version and the first
one.
James Futch
> It's called an Oedipus complex. He felt intense guilt at attraction to
> any woman other than his mother, and in such, the 'mother' personality
> took over after such incidents.
>
> >put into the rest of the film.
>
Yeah, I guess i was cringing at how inept it was.
James Futch
>
> On Sun, 06 Dec 1998 04:54:02 GMT, James Futch <jfu...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >- Why the hell wouldn't even a dive like the Bates Motel (as depicted
> >here) have a little computer or cash register???
>
> If you'll notice, the motel wasn't exactly doing gangbuster buisness.
I just said that didn't I? Even the sleaziest little convenience stores
have a cash register. But that's a little point compared to the rest of
this mess of a film.
I just pointed out those things in answer to Van Sant's feeble "i just
wanted to set it in modern times excuse", an excuse made more feeble by
the lazy attention to details that look laughable in this day and age.
Thats all I'm talking about.
James
MasonBarge
>It's also a fault of the original then, I didn't notice a significant
>difference in the sizes of the hole between this version and the first
>one.
Admittedly, but that was a more innocent age. Not that I belong to the
original-Psycho-cult, but a hole in the wall seemed fine in the old one and
just doesn't seem as likely to fool someone (even as a cinematic device) in
1998.
John Gavin
supposed to be a macho, street-type. Why on earth did Hitch cast that
debonair refined actor John Gavin ;)
Regina Alexandra Robbins
Because no one but he could read lines like
"But when you do [marry], you'll swing!"
and
"I called and pounded, but she just ignored me!"
and
"I've been talking about your mother...about your motel"
in a way that makes them sound not awkward, but downright surreal.
RAR.