← Back to Reviews
in
Psycho (Van Sant, 1998)
What the hell were they thinking?
Where do I even begin? For one thing, this movie likes to pretend it's a remake of the original movie. But no, that's not quite right. A remake is something that attempts to do something new with an established source, in order to better fit with new audiences. This usually entails needed additions in order to strengthen the source material. A great example of this expansion of the source material to fit a new generation would be The Thing (1982) and The Fly (1986). Better special effects, deeper storytelling, and very accomplished translation from black/white to color.
This movie, however, is probably the worst attempt at 'remaking' a movie I've ever seen. It has the absolute audacity to shot for shot remake nearly the entire movie. So that's already pretty bad, but it attempts to justify its existence by 'modernizing' the entire movie. This basically means shooting in color, and changing currency and etc. around.
But by trying to modernize the formula, it only calls attention to the parts it doesn't change, that needed to be changed in order to work with this framework it's set up. What's the point of increasing the amount of money Marion Crane steals, if she's still going to drive a tacky 60's car anyway, with the same style of driving effects to it? This is the 90's. Driving effects have progressed much farther then this. If it's supposed to be a homage to the original, that's stupid.
It quite irks me that the movie is shot in color. That was the novelty of the original, being incredibly scary without the use of any color. By adding that, it removes some of the subtlety in the shot. It's as if it adds too much detail, removing the effective use of imagination.
Actually, I think that does the killing blow for me. The lack of subtlety. It's more like it's going through the motions of what made the original so good, and changing things willy-nilly, without actually understanding why it worked the way it did originally.
For example, let's list the problems with 'modernizing' a specific scene in the movie, the scene where Lila goes into the basement:
This movie is just a waste of time. The acting is horrible, the use of color is completely unneeded, and the cinematography is somehow complete crap despite being a near ripoff of the shots from the original. Whenever the movie tries to do something different, it fails miserably because it ruins the entire purpose of the scene. Just go watch the original, it's far and away better then this abomination.
Selected Quote:
Milton Arbogast: Oh, someone has seen her, all right. Someone always sees a girl with $400,000.
Psycho (Van Sant, 1998)
What the hell were they thinking?
Where do I even begin? For one thing, this movie likes to pretend it's a remake of the original movie. But no, that's not quite right. A remake is something that attempts to do something new with an established source, in order to better fit with new audiences. This usually entails needed additions in order to strengthen the source material. A great example of this expansion of the source material to fit a new generation would be The Thing (1982) and The Fly (1986). Better special effects, deeper storytelling, and very accomplished translation from black/white to color.
This movie, however, is probably the worst attempt at 'remaking' a movie I've ever seen. It has the absolute audacity to shot for shot remake nearly the entire movie. So that's already pretty bad, but it attempts to justify its existence by 'modernizing' the entire movie. This basically means shooting in color, and changing currency and etc. around.
But by trying to modernize the formula, it only calls attention to the parts it doesn't change, that needed to be changed in order to work with this framework it's set up. What's the point of increasing the amount of money Marion Crane steals, if she's still going to drive a tacky 60's car anyway, with the same style of driving effects to it? This is the 90's. Driving effects have progressed much farther then this. If it's supposed to be a homage to the original, that's stupid.
It quite irks me that the movie is shot in color. That was the novelty of the original, being incredibly scary without the use of any color. By adding that, it removes some of the subtlety in the shot. It's as if it adds too much detail, removing the effective use of imagination.
Actually, I think that does the killing blow for me. The lack of subtlety. It's more like it's going through the motions of what made the original so good, and changing things willy-nilly, without actually understanding why it worked the way it did originally.
For example, let's list the problems with 'modernizing' a specific scene in the movie, the scene where Lila goes into the basement:
WARNING: "Psycho" spoilers below
*The basement is much larger. This wouldn't be a problem usually, but there's not a single instance where this comes into play. Why bother expanding the locale if you're not going to do something good with it? Makes it less scary if Lila can just go hide somewhere, as opposed to being borderline trapped in there.
*There's some loud birds and crap making a ton of noise. It's hard to be scared when you have a sort of buffer for the reveal. I guess this is supposed to tie into Norman's taxidermy business somehow, but leaves more questions then it answers. Why bother having live birds down there if his job is to stuff dead ones? One could argue he's waiting for them to die, but then how did he afford to buy so many different kinds of birds anyway? The motel is close to foreclosure due to lack of business. Where would he get the money for it?
*Mrs. Bates swings around much more slowly. The surprise factor comes from expecting Mrs. Bates to be alive, only for her to be a gross corpse. A slow reveal is not the proper way to do that, as you can see ahead of when Lila flicks the light that she's dead.
*The light doesn't flicker against the face correctly. Instead of forwards and backwards, which illuminates the face in a way that keeps at least a bit of it always in the light, it swings side to side. This means the face gets obscured in the darkness a lot of the time. The way Alfred Hitchcock shot it was to make it seem like it was almost alive, laughing. This just makes it look like a stuffed corpse.
*Norman doesn't run in quickly. He walks in slowly, as if he's aware of what he's doing. He then struggles, and has to be kicked in the face to be subdued. This causes a few rather major issues:
1) Why would Norman walk in slowly in order to stab Lila? He was obviously running in the previous scene, and desperate to find her. He has been shown to not hesitate in the previous two killings, instead being very quick and decisive about it. Why bother changing tactics now?
2) The whole point of Norman's character is that he's conflicted by two personas. The persona of normal Norman Bates, an introverted, shy man who is a tad lonely, and the persona of Mother, who mostly serves to eliminate threats, as a reaction to drastic changes in Norman's environment. By having Norman struggle, but then give up as soon as he's caught, it shatters his mind.
By changing this, instead having him be physically subdued more aggressively, it makes his progression to permanent Mother persona unbelievable. There is no expression on his face that's like "Oh god, it's all over. I've failed." Instead he just kinds of...sits there.
*The basement is much larger. This wouldn't be a problem usually, but there's not a single instance where this comes into play. Why bother expanding the locale if you're not going to do something good with it? Makes it less scary if Lila can just go hide somewhere, as opposed to being borderline trapped in there.
*There's some loud birds and crap making a ton of noise. It's hard to be scared when you have a sort of buffer for the reveal. I guess this is supposed to tie into Norman's taxidermy business somehow, but leaves more questions then it answers. Why bother having live birds down there if his job is to stuff dead ones? One could argue he's waiting for them to die, but then how did he afford to buy so many different kinds of birds anyway? The motel is close to foreclosure due to lack of business. Where would he get the money for it?
*Mrs. Bates swings around much more slowly. The surprise factor comes from expecting Mrs. Bates to be alive, only for her to be a gross corpse. A slow reveal is not the proper way to do that, as you can see ahead of when Lila flicks the light that she's dead.
*The light doesn't flicker against the face correctly. Instead of forwards and backwards, which illuminates the face in a way that keeps at least a bit of it always in the light, it swings side to side. This means the face gets obscured in the darkness a lot of the time. The way Alfred Hitchcock shot it was to make it seem like it was almost alive, laughing. This just makes it look like a stuffed corpse.
*Norman doesn't run in quickly. He walks in slowly, as if he's aware of what he's doing. He then struggles, and has to be kicked in the face to be subdued. This causes a few rather major issues:
1) Why would Norman walk in slowly in order to stab Lila? He was obviously running in the previous scene, and desperate to find her. He has been shown to not hesitate in the previous two killings, instead being very quick and decisive about it. Why bother changing tactics now?
2) The whole point of Norman's character is that he's conflicted by two personas. The persona of normal Norman Bates, an introverted, shy man who is a tad lonely, and the persona of Mother, who mostly serves to eliminate threats, as a reaction to drastic changes in Norman's environment. By having Norman struggle, but then give up as soon as he's caught, it shatters his mind.
By changing this, instead having him be physically subdued more aggressively, it makes his progression to permanent Mother persona unbelievable. There is no expression on his face that's like "Oh god, it's all over. I've failed." Instead he just kinds of...sits there.
This movie is just a waste of time. The acting is horrible, the use of color is completely unneeded, and the cinematography is somehow complete crap despite being a near ripoff of the shots from the original. Whenever the movie tries to do something different, it fails miserably because it ruins the entire purpose of the scene. Just go watch the original, it's far and away better then this abomination.
Selected Quote:
Milton Arbogast: Oh, someone has seen her, all right. Someone always sees a girl with $400,000.