Viggo Mortensen Movie:

Editorial Review:
Numerous critics had already sharpened their knives even before Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot color "re-creation" of the 1960 black-and-white Hitchcock classic was released, chiding the Good Will Hunting director for defiling hallowed ground. This intriguing cinematic curiosity, though, is hardly as sacrilegious as critics would lead you to believe. If anything, Van Sant doesn't take enough liberties with his almost slavish devotion to the material, now updated with modern references. At times, you wish Van Sant would cut loose with a little spontaneity, a little energy, a little something. Unfortunately, when he does venture outside Hitchcock's parameters, with inserted shots of storm clouds during the murder sequences, it's to little effect. Granted, he liberally splashes color throughout the film (especially in the case of the infamous shower scene), and this is a great-looking movie, but in his obsession with adding a new physical dimension to the film, there's little insight into these characters that Hitchcock hadn't already provided. Vince Vaughn, a robotic and giggly Norman, doesn't crawl under your skin the way boy-next-door Anthony Perkins did, and Anne Heche is admirable if not very sympathetic in the Janet Leigh role. Van Sant does score a minor coup, though, in his casting of the supporting roles: Julianne Moore provides a welcome shot of energy as Heche's irritable and curious sister, William H. Macy is a perfect small-time detective, Viggo Mortensen is studly enough to make you understand why Heche would want to run away with him, and James LeGros walks away with his one brief scene as a used car salesman. And Danny Elfman's gorgeous rerecording of Bernard Herrmann's score is a potent supporting character unto itself. Students and fans of the original film will get a kick out of the modern revisions, but don't expect anything of Hitchcockian caliber; watch it for the sum of its intriguing parts, but not the whole. --Mark Englehart

Psycho [Region 2] Reviews:
Well-Made In A Sense, But Completely Pointless AND Inferior
2009-12-04 - If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That works wonders for this pointless shot for shot remake in color. Psycho is a seminal work, storywise and technically from the legendary directing of Alfred Hitchcock. Besides it's sequels which I have never seen, the lame duck of the Psycho series is the remake, which is nearly indentical in most ways besides the fact that it

To be fair, this movie isn't terrible. Besides Vince Vaughn's terrible performances of Norman Bates, the acting isn't terrible, and neither is the directing, although Gus van Sant is obviously no Alfred Hitchcock (he used the camera angles. Hitchcock probably pioneered it. IF anybody can clarify this question, please do for me. Wikipedia doesn't have answers alone). It's not a badly made movie. It's got the skilled and assertive editing of a regular picture. It's a movie that is made with some skill, and not just some hack director who just got a sub-par editing system and decided to make a student project. It's a movie that is technically fine and made well.

But really, this movie is just pointless, while in theory this movie may be cool, as being a reimagining of a seminal work, it just misses the magic. Shooting this movie in color may seem like a good thing to reimagin the work, but really, it looks just stupid. I always thought that the black and white color is much more dark, bleak, and cooler. Psycho's black and white is just perfect, and the movie doesn't need friggin' color. Look at the shadows in the parlor. That in color? Pfft, talk about losing the magic. Seriously, this movie does not NEED COLOR! It just looks stupid. Leave in in black and white, it's much more visionary and inspired.

There is one thing that I think was an actual interesting and useful addition. For some reason, I think the fact that Norman does that...thing, kind of a interseting addition, mainly because I think it's a much more legit reason for "mom" to kill a girl. Oh sure, it sure as ______ doesn't save the movie from being pointless (and the original scene has legit reasons too), but merely looking at a woman is questionable for mother to go completely ape____. However, the fact that Norman lusts after a girl enough to do that.....thing....would make mother angry enough to _______ kill the woman responsible. I just that was a nice addition.

But the again, there is one thing that makes this movie much inferior, and that's the godawful performance of Norman Bates. Watching Vince Vaughn trying to be Norman Bates is hilariously terrible, he can't act nervous and just looks stupid the whole movie. As one person said. Vince Vaughn is playing Norman Bates (Poorly). Anthony Perkins IS Norman Bates (played with viruosity). It's really just pathetic to watch him. That'. janet Leigh is a bit less, but I think that there is also one Janet Leight. However, the performances aren't that bad. It's just Bates that makes the whole thing a lot worse. Vince Vaughn is a much better actor elsewhere.

Oh sure, this movie isn't one of the worst movies ever made. It's still Psycho god damn it! But it doesn't improve on the movie at all. For that reason, it's pointless. But it's also a cheap @$$ vision and Norman Bates version. And for that reason, it makes the movie inferior. Pointless and inferior. Don't waste your time. Case Closed.

C-

Excellent and superior to the original.
2009-10-12 - Everything about this version of the film works perfectly including the acting, the direction, the exquisite variation of color. Unique hues not only succeed in adding atmosphere and tone, but also clue the viewer in on unique aspects of each character and setting in the drama. Watching this version gives one the feeling of entering a dream world. Everything is strange and wild. I personally find the original unwatchable but this 1998 reimaging nails it.

DON'T MESS WITH A CLASSIC.
2009-08-09 - When word got out they had plans to do a re-make of Hitchcock's 1960 classic "Psycho. One thing came to mind "BAD IDEA"...This movie suck and failed and was a Insult to Hitchcock.. You want to see Psycho Buy the Orginal 1960 classic Movie. It is far Superior and done by the Master of Suspense Alfred Hitchcock.

This Re-make is not worth your time or money.

The remake that went "Psycho"
2009-03-21 - A remake of Hitchcock's classic, Psycho. A shot-for-shot, colorized version. How did it turn out? Badly...

Gus Van Sant's remake is a strange film. I think that seeing how they would utilize color and the little modern tweaks are interesting. Unfortunately, that sums up what IS interesting about this movie. The choice of making the remake shot-for-shot and not changing the script at all ultimately hinders this film. The problem is that because of this, nothing new can be brought to the table in terms of storyline or characters and the film becomes dull and lifeless. Also, the nudity and increased gore in the shower scene defiles the genius of Hitchcock's version. Hitchcock was able to pull it off without it and created the required effect anyway.

Additionally, I wonder who was in charge of casting this film. Although Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche try their best, they still fall short. Vince Vaughn has huge shoes to fill as Norman Bates, and Anne Heche isn't all that sympathetic as Marion Crane and I feel indifferent about her performance. On the positive side, Julianne Moore and William H. Macy do fine in their roles.

I think Gus Van Sant is a good director, when he does his own work!

Not terrible, but not the same either.
2008-11-17 - I'm not sure why anyone would pick this one up and pop it in the DVD player when they can just pop the original one in instead. The original is a great classic that will forever sit on top ten lists everywhere as the most chilling work of art ever created for the silver screen. This one is only tepid in comparison, and that's where the interest lies if anything, and that's too watch an update scene for scene, shot for shot movie, minus the suspense and minus the dread. This one is just "blah". Julianne Moore and William Macy manage to spice it up a bit when they finally show up about half way through, but Vince Vaughan and Anne Heche can barely claw their way out of this one trying to match the incredible performances from the original. They're better than acceptable actors, but these aren't performances that can be repeated and that was the big mistake in trying to create an exact remake of the original. They manage to get away with it in this one, but it leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth.