Psycho (1960) Overrated?

I've deleted the last few posts in this thread. Personal insults have no place here. And if you guys want to go at each other, it at least has to be about something. Feel free to disagree vehemently about Psycho, but otherwise, please allow other people to have the discussion without having to familiarize themselves with whatever feud is going on.

Hitchcock was an innovator. The suspense film existed in some way before he started focusing on them, but no one did so much with it until he came along. Did the innocent man on the run thriller exist before he did The Lodger and especially the brilliant 39 Steps? To say Psycho is not original because violent movies had been done before or there were thrillers before or psycho movies before misses the point. Any narrative movie strictly speaking could be considered not to be original because it is using storytelling devices and narrative plot that existed in some way. But Psycho brought elements to the genre that was new even if Hitchcock was influenced by the masterful Les Diabolique. Hitchcock didn't directly borrow (rip-off) the way Brian de Palma would shamelessly do from Hitchcock in Dressed to Kill and that one with Cliff Robertson and Genevieve Bujold.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Psycho is, first and foremost, a film about architecture.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

Y'know, there are times when nothing beats a PN post.

Exactly. Sure, Psycho was clearly influenced by M and Diabolique, but that in no way means the film was incapable of being original in its own right.

__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock

And concise, a rare thing.

I'm a bit late to this thread but no - Psycho isn't overrated.
It's the film that changed my life and sparked my interest in films.
It's pure perfection.

Me too!

Really?

Why do you sound so surprised?

We're supposed to be lyin' MoFos.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

There are a couple of things that hinder "Psycho" to modern audiences.

Firstly, movies have gone so much further since 1960. Think about it. We've had Leatherface, Pinhead and Hannibal Lecter since then.

Secondly, and I'm trying really hard not to spoil it here, nearly EVERYBODY knows whodunnit. Usually before they've even seen the movie. That really robs the film of something (remember Hitchcock tried very hard to keep the plot under wraps).

But if you want to know why the movie is a masterpiece, I recommend you read Donald Spoto's dissection of it. When I first read that I realised I'd watched the movie without really understanding it at all.

I knew who the twist before watching it, and I still think its a masterpiece. Hitchcock truely went to lengths to make a film market unlike any other. I wish other Mystery films would be like this. Maybe they should do one with multiple endings, and screen these endings in multiple cinemas hence there wouldn't be a canon ending.

The reason they can't do that in a mystery film is because the ending has to flow from the story. Psycho's ending surprised people when they saw it, but it comes out of the story. Trick endings that don't flow from the story once it is revealed come across as cheats and disappoint. You see Psycho through the end and you say,"Yeah I should have seen that." I once saw a lousy Psycho type movie where it was revealed at the end the teenage girl who was killing people was really a boy, but they obviously cast a girl and substituted a boy at the end so it was unbelievable. Psycho cheats slightly with the dubbed voice, but otherwise seem inevitable and logical once the climax occurs. William Castle's rip-off of Psycho, Homicide, has a neat Psycho variation and again the only cheat is dubbing. But where Psycho has the structure of a tragedy, Homicide is just a trick film, but an enjoyable one on that level.

I too knew the twist before watching Psycho, and its still one of my favorites. Speaking of which, i'm on vacation and I just bought a framed poster of the movie at a memorabilia store at Universal Orlando

That is just not type of horror that can scare me...only ghost,creepy Asian horrors,David Lynch movies can scare me and creep me out...but i still think that Psycho,Scream and similar movies are great,but like thrillers...

Psycho created a new genre. The legendary shower scene became the single basis for the slasher movies of modern times.

This is one suspense/thriller movie where characters were portrayed with equal charm and disdain. Insanity was always portrayed with such complexity and horror. This is the first time an antagonist was portrayed with a certain amount of awe, mystery, coherence and downright insanity.

The twist is common now and was based on the book yet even if you put it side by side all the films that used the same trick can never execute the surprise in the same level of brutality and simplicity. Also, it is the first movie that dealt with brutal murder, Oedipal complex and transvesticism. These issues were beyond taboo in that time. That should be enough to tell you how courageous the film was and how successful it became in pushing forward issues others shied away from.

Even the use of the heroine was different. We were manipulated to watch her and then she was taken away from us all too suddenly. We were inspired to be attracted to Bates only for him to end up being the bad guy.

You can question the movie's politics but you cannot question that it enormity of contribution.

__________________
10 kinds of people on Facebook

Have to agree with some of the comments here about the changes in modern audiences compared to the 1960s. I watched this a week ago on TV and the story is a solid one. Scary? No. Some good acting and the shower scene is a classic scene but it's lost it's bite as far as shocks go.

no.

I concur.

To the people who feel that Psycho is overrated, how many of you have viewed the film multiple times?