User Comments:
32 out of 46 people found the following comment useful:-
What was the point?, 5 December 2004
Author:
Peanuthead from Springfield, Illinois
This is easily the worst remake in film history. I have never
understood the idea of a remake at all. If a film, like Psycho, is so
good to start with why on earth do you want to try and improve on it?
If you insist on tampering with perfection, why then do you have to try
to recreate it in it's whole? There is nothing original here. Gus Van
Sant put nothing of himself into this film. They say imitation is the
highest form of flattery, but this is ridiculous. There are a lot of
sides to a character as complex as Norman Bates, and I suspect that
Vaughn may have wanted to explore them. Instead Van Sant forced him
into sticking to a cheap imitation of Anthony Perkins. Perkins turned
in a performance that lead to one of the most memorable characters in
film history and it would have been impossible for any actor, no matter
how good to recreate that. The rest of the characters are stuck just as
tight to similarly wooden imitations of the originals. It is almost
painful to watch very talented actors (namely William H Macy) have that
talent stifled. In the end, Gus Van Sant set out to pay homage to a
great film. Instead he cheapened it, and created a movie that is not
worthy of late night cable.
Check for other user comments. - I have seen this movie and would like to comment on it
Message Boards Discuss this movie with other users on IMDb message board for Psycho (1998)
Recommendations If you like this title, we also recommend... Psycho (1960) Show more recommendations
Add a recommendation
Email this page to a friend 
Update Information
|
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
