Psycho (1998) - A Movie Review

How is this Bates motel any scarier than the one we saw three decades ago?

Psycho is a 1998 remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 film. After embezzling money from her boss, Marion Crane skips town. Finding a solitary motel on the side of the road, the owner introduces her to the place and its terrible secrets.

Talk about movies that didn’t need to be remade. When I first heard about the remake of Psycho, I actually thought that it was a joke. Other than different actors and in color, the remake of Psycho duplicates everything from the original. Why they did this, I’m not sure.

Whether anyone cared about the success of Psycho, let’s talk about the strange casting choices. During filming, the actors watched the original Psycho copying the same movements and delivery of dialogue. Clearly, they weren’t given the chance to instill their own rendition.

I have given the late Anne Heche flack for her performance as Marion Crane, but now that I think about it, she failed to receive better direction. Mirroring most of the mannerisms of the late Janet Leigh, Heche wasn’t given much freedom to conduct her own interpretation. I know that she was a good actress based on other performances.

Okay, I have come around more to Vince Vaughn as an actor. Vaughn was not the right actor to play Norman Bates. Vaughn was too intimidating in both appearance and line delivery. However, he did do his own interpretation which I never noticed until a most recent watch.

I love Julianne Moore’s performance. Moore should have been cast as Marion. In contrast to Lila in the 1960 film, Moore made Lila more aggressive, standing her ground. This is my favorite interpretation of any of the characters in this adaptation of Psycho.

Until I watched it again, I never noticed the new dynamic Moore and Viggo Mortenson (Sam Loomis) did for their characters. It was funny how little Lila and Sam wanted to do with each other.

William H. Macy was wonderful in his performance as Arbogast. He was the only one who felt natural in the delivery of his lines.

The pacing works better in the 1960 film than here. It is so unnatural! To why Gus Vant Sant remade Psycho (1960), he commented, ‘So nobody else would have to.’ It’s so weird how everything is the same, even copying continuity errors that happened in the original film! Why?

However, not everything is the same. Sant added only a few creative changes, most of which involved technical aspects that Alfred Hitchcock had a tough time developing. During significant sequences, there are strange cuts to odd images that are totally irrelevant to the film. He also cut out important symbolism.

The set for the Bates house and motel was remade. It looks like a movie set and not an actual location. Sant cut out a couple of scenes and changed a little of the script, but it’s all the same old-fashioned dialogue that doesn’t make sense in the 90s time period.

The wardrobe is way too flashy and out of date. Sources say that the costume designer wasn’t told that the remake took place in modern times and not the 60s!

If you are going to remake a film, why not make it completely different? Psycho (1998) could have been developed into a whole different angle but it wasn’t. Sant had the opportunity to change the remake into a more creative vision.

I’d only recommend Psycho (1998) if you’re really curious and if you need a laugh. My recommendation: watch the original.