What if the entire story was told from Norman’s perspective? What if Van Sant produced a page-for-page translation of Robert Bloch’s source novel? Instead, this Psycho is tragically gutless, with small changes that are detrimental if anything. Granted, if Van Sant made any major alterations, it may have alienated Hitchcock purists, but at least the project would have been bolder and more compelling. Moreover, with Van Sant wanting to produce a shot-for-shot recreation, he constantly referred back to Hitchcock’s film on-set, asking the performers to mimic movements to the best of their abilities. Thus, Van Sant actually re-uses Joseph Stefano’s screenplay for the original film, making a few minor changes along the way. But Hitchcock’s Psycho does not possess the type of transcendent premise that easily yields itself to a new reimagining, and apparently Van Sant himself even knew this. Hell, recycling ideas and stories has been a staple of Hollywood since cinema’s inception - Akira Kurosawa’s samurai masterpiece Yojimbo was remade as both A Fistful of Dollars and Last Man Standing, while John Sturges’ The Magnificent Seven was a western appropriation of Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai. Remakes are not inherently bad, as some remakes have successfully produced a new, exciting interpretation of older material. It’s just extremely dreary and meaningless. In fact (irony of all ironies), he calls his Psycho an “anti-remake film.” But producing something comparable to his ambitions requires a deft touch that simply eludes Van Sant, with the picture bearing no evidence of satire underneath its surface. Ironically, Van Sant once stated in a Newsweek article that he detests remake. Macy) is recruited to hopefully put an end to the mystery. Once Marion’s disappearance becomes worrisome to those close to her, private investigator Milton Arbogast ( William H. Events of this evening eventually turn violent, with the jealous rage of Norman’s twisted mother putting an end to Marion’s plans. En route to visit her boyfriend Sam ( Viggo Mortensen), an exhausted Marion pulls into the Bates Motel on a rainy evening, where she meets proprietor Norman Bates ( Vince Vaughn). (For those keeping score, it was only $40,000 in the original.) However, Marion perceives the sizeable sum of money as an opportunity for a fresh start, impulsively deciding to steal it and run. A mostly limp, paint-by-numbers bore, 1998’s Psycho is still every bit as dreadful as ever, with the film’s shonky reputation now speaking for itself.Ī real estate secretary earning a thankless wage who yearns to do more with her life, Marion Crane ( Anne Heche) is entrusted by her employer to deposit $400,000 in the bank. However, there is no artistic motive to remake Psycho, especially with director Gus Van Sant staging a scene-for-scene, almost shot-for-shot aping of Hitchcock’s original, except now it’s in colour, stars a more modern cast, and is supported by a generous budget. Why waste time and money to remake perfection? This “why” can admittedly be addressed in a financial sense, since Universal likely assumed that there would be a built-in audience of curious fans and oblivious film-goers. Turn it off here.Įven in 2015, simply the notion of remaking Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho seems every bit as ill-advised, pointless and idiotic as it did back in the 1990s. If you create a user account, you can add your own review of this DVDĪdditional Footage- International News Reel FootageĪdditional Footage- Additional Shower Scene