Remake and plagiarism, in which there is absolutely nothing new – the concepts are unrelated. The Psycho franchise can be divided into two periods: the original Hitchcock film and everything that was shot afterwards. Neither the three sequels nor the television spin-off could replicate the genius's success. In the late 1990s, when "Halloween" was gaining a second wind, and the just appeared "Scream" was a worthy competitor, the franchise "Psycho" was already in stagnation. Not surprisingly, in 1998 we saw not a sequel, but a remake, which became a desperate but completely failed attempt to remind yourself.
What Hitchcock showed us in 1960, this film shows again, but let’s ask the question: why are remakes made at all? Usually in order to give a new breath to those films that have managed to become obsolete in one way or another. For this reason, for example, in 1999 a remake of "The Mummy" will be released, in 2005 a remake of "King Kong", and in 2006 a remake of "The Hills Have Eyes". We fell in love with them not only for their new perspective on familiar stories, but also for the new scenes and dialogues through which the views of another director were expressed. But "Psycho" Gus Van Sant is not from this category of remakes, but a completely different one, which is more suitable for the name "plagiarism". This film, along with the American "Curse" (2004) and "13th district" (2014), literally and frame-by-frame repeats the original, bringing absolutely nothing new. Except, of course, the color image in the case of Psycho. The problem is that the unique original (this applies to two other examples) at the time of the remake is not outdated. And to be honest, then nowadays Hitchcock’s tape looks in one breath and does not need any reworking at all. For “Psycho” is especially offensive because this film created a whole subgenre – slashers, and it was in the United States that he achieved the greatest success.
Familiar scenes to the same familiar music completely repeat the film of 1960, but look more artificial, fake. That’s because you don’t have a big original idea anymore. Yes, it turns out to reproduce in detail, but do we need such a reproduction? 1998 is already in the past, and time has shown that we do not need it. A significant negative factor is also acting, which is not only worse in itself, but also suffers from the same unnecessary copying of the original. And if Ann Hech simply does not shine with abilities, then it is very offensive to see Viggo Mortensen here. His starring role from Middle-earth will appear in a few years, but it is interesting that in the 1990s the future Aragorn often visited slashers. For example, earlier Viggo appeared in the third "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". If you perceive the actors regardless of their characters, then the remake of Psycho can be considered the meeting place Julianne Moore, Vince Vaughn and William H. Macy, who starred in different parts of Jurassic Park. The pride of their characters is on the conscience of the director, who forced them to imitate the immortal classics.
Often this imitation also looks like bullying, such as the tilt of Norman Bates' head and the demonstration of his throat. In the remake, this scene looks like a malicious parody. The same applies to the bathroom cleaning scene, as well as everything related to the swamp. Hitchcock didn’t just show, he made the audience think and analyze what was happening.
Those few scenes that turned out to be good here are the absolute merit of Hitchcock, not Saint, so out of respect for the master of the past, it is not good to put the lowest rating. From its remake only enhances the vulgarity of the most interesting scenes. For which it is impossible to praise him.
Gus is a normal director, guys. A bad director wouldn’t appear in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Sitting in a chair there, counting money, ahehee, the language of irony. Remember, I wrote a review a long time ago. But why the hell did he go to Hitchcock in 1998, this question haunts me.
One could understand De Palma, who often confessed his love, called Alfred the most influential director. “Razor,” “Fake Body,” confirmed Brian’s words. Van Sant, with his hand on his heart, specializes more in dramas (often they are dedicated to teenagers – “The Elephant”, “Paranoid Park”, etc.). What are some horror thrillers?
Apparently, there was a psychosis - if everyone goes, I adore Alfred, May Name is Gus Van Sant, I will remake Psycho in 1960. And I'm not just going to re-shoot it, I'm going to shoot it, Norman Bates by the road. The result is absolutely deserved “Golden Raspberry” for directing. Who in their right mind would fight Hitchcock? I'm moving my hands.
The shot is some kind of game. To make Psycho, you need to have the name Hitchcock. If your last name is Nolan or Tarantino, you won’t make Psycho anymore. No one forbids to love, why only spend so much energy and nerves on copying, the result will still be obviously a failure.
Actors? Vince Vaughn flies past the role. Viggo and Julianne are ugly, and Anne Hech is embarrassed. It is repulsive, that is, it does not come out to empathize. Only Macy liked it, but Macy is a comedy actor, a skoda pussy (he was also wearing a hat), such a detective. In short, a circus with horses.
And the apotheosis of Gus' degradation is the masturbation scene. No, seriously! In the original film, Hitchcock let the audience figure it out for themselves. Suspense, desire, the magic of cinema (again). Gus didn't care about the high bell tower. Shame. Are you crazy about Hitchcock? Take his paintings and restore them if that's the case. Nice to meet you. Plus, good business. Yes, and do not reshoot with foam at the mouth of the great classics, turning your filmography into a laughing stock.
P.S.
A curious moment, even the brilliant music of Herrmann does not save!
3 out of 10
“We all get a little bit off the hook sometimes, don’t we?”
In 1989, the director of the American School of Independent Film Gus Van Sant first attracted the attention of the general public thanks to the drama Pharmacy Cowboy. He achieved even greater success and recognition thanks to the film “My Personal State of Idaho” in 1991. This was followed by an unexpected failure with “Even Cowboy Girls Sometimes Sad” (1993). The first attempt to rehabilitate was the film “Die in the Name” of 1995, which received good criticism, but the real triumph came thanks to the drama “Good Will Hunting”, released in 1997. This film is still listed in many ratings of the best films in the history of cinema.
And here is a recognized master of directing for completely incomprehensible reasons began shooting the modernized thriller “Psycho”. For film fans, the original Psycho has long earned cult fame, and critics even call the film as the best creation of the unforgettable master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock. Despite the fact that Hitchcock’s film was released in the seemingly distant 1960s, it is by no means outdated, despite the fact that it was shot in black and white color, it still looks relevant and vivid, as if everything is happening quite recently, maybe a couple of years ago. So the questions remain, "Why?" Why? For who? For what? And for what purpose? Van Sant needed to shoot a remake of the cult thing, the memory of which is not covered by the dust of time. Did the success of “Good Will Hunting” so turn the director’s head that he was in love with the saint?
Even more questions remain about the method Van Sant chose for filming. He minimally changed the whole thing. Some scenes he shot in a supposed mirror image. Instead of black and white, he made a color film. He changed the most important scenes, for which Psycho became a classic example of a thriller and suspense: the famous scenes in the shower and on the stairs associated with murders were mediocrely remade. In general, there are so many questions and complaints to Van Sant that even in the short biography of the director, the theme of the remake “Psycho” everyone somehow tries to bypass or walk away. But, frankly, one can choose something good from all the bad: who would have brought this “Psycho” by Van Sant as an example to our “smart people” who decided to shoot remakes of classic Soviet comedies (this is me for the abomination of “Gentlemen, good luck!” and “The Caucasian Prisoner!”), but, apparently, far-sighted people then in the vicinity was not, but a pity.
Returning to “Psycho” Van Sant, you can not ignore the moment that in the filming took part a very solid actor’s ensemble: Anne Hech, Viggo Mortensen, Vince Vaughn, Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, Philip Baker Hall, Robert Forster, Rita Wilson, James Remar and even the guitarist of the rock band “Red Hot Chili Peppers”. Flea starred in a short episode here (Gus Van Sant shot a few clips for the band). What can I say about such a great cast? Vince Vaughn did not come close to the phenomenon created by Anthony Perkins, who created the image of the unforgettable Norman Bates. Vince Vaughn is the worst actor in the film, it is not even clear how he did not get into the nomination of the anti-award “Golden Raspberry”, although Van Sant received it in the category “Worst Director”. Anne Hech was just hit for the worst female role, although the Saturn Award nominated her for Best Supporting Actress. There are several inconsistencies at once, although, to confess, Hech did not cause such irritation, but she did not have to worry about her character, her prototype of their “Hitchcock” film is stronger on her head. By the way, this can be said about all the others who had more or less noticeable roles in the “Vansentov” “Psycho”, only William H. Macy did not cause much antipathy.
And all the above negative criticism is just what lies on the surface, and if you dig deeper, this Psycho deserves it even more. Completely awkward, untimely and generally unnecessary remake of the classic thriller. One thing is glad that Gus Van Sant literally two years completely rehabilitated (as it was after “Even Cowboy Girls Sometimes Sad”), it happened thanks to the film “Find Forrester” in 2000. And many actors of the new convocation “Psycho” with subsequent roles forced to forget about the accident called “remake of “Psycho”.
3 out of 10
Gus Van Sant has good movies, so it’s strange to me that he took on this project and I don’t know why. The cult film Alfred Hitchcock "Psycho" is a turning film of its time and a real masterpiece (for me personally). I like everything in it: the atmosphere, and directing, and camera work, acting and incomparable Anthony Perkins and Janet Lee. That film is cult, and creating a remake, you must understand that the viewer will immediately treat the new film with great demands. After all, once the film Hitchcock blew up the cinema. If the remake is removed, then it should be no worse, of course, fresh and perhaps even with a different look of the director. But the question is, is there a need for a remake of this famous story?
Starting to watch this movie, I already from the first minutes felt something incomprehensible and unpleasant. I didn’t understand what I didn’t like about the movie, but I kept watching, giving it a chance. Again, we see the story of a woman who stole money from her job and ran away. On a rainy night, she stays in an unknown hotel, and here something terrible happens.
60 million dollars budget for this picture. Did you feel that budget while watching? I don't. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I found out the movie had such a huge budget. With such opportunities and means, a raw and slick film turned out. Everything looked incredibly dry, and most importantly not at all interesting. I didn’t like a lot about this remake and to be honest, I barely watched it until the end. Just waiting for a scene with a shower, and then the film becomes dead and terribly boring.
Why didn't this movie work? First of all, the direction is very weak. Hitchcock showed this story in a special way, and this film was a pathetic replay, without anything dynamic and fresh. I didn’t like the atmosphere in the painting. It wasn’t real, it looked theatrical. What was missing was something alive, something real. Some scenes are even fake, and when this happens, the movie immediately falls in the eyes.
I am convinced that the choice of the main actress was wrong! Anne Hech is an actress who is a loser, and I’ve noticed a long time ago that if she’s in a movie, it’s probably going to be a failure. Her character from this story, she played, frankly, bad. Janet Lee played in the first "Psycho" is simply amazing. Even without words, just looking at her said a lot. As for Anne Hech, it was a failure. She played fake, and the scenes in the car as she drove out of town, and then in the rain at night - extremely staged. Somewhere she didn’t play, somewhere overplayed, and she had an empty look. I didn’t believe in her performance, and this actress was a huge drawback for this film.
As for Vincent Vaughn, personally, it was funny to watch him play the main villain. His role was very important and subtle (not every actor will do it). Anthony Perkins once played this villain so cool and unsurpassed that the game of Vincent Vaughn is not even nearby. Well, it was a little implausible, and I didn't believe Vincen Vaughn either. In the second roles, such famous actors as Julianne Moore and Viggo Mortensen appeared, but for some reason they remain in the shadows and even somehow the viewer does not pay attention to them. This is due to the weak and sluggish direction.
Psycho is an American, detective thriller with a taste of horror in 1998 and a remake of the famous story from director Gus Van Sant. To put it mildly, the movie did not work out and is a stingy and unnecessary remake. This picture disappointed me and even left behind something unpleasant. I didn’t like the movie and I said no. The movie is disposable and sucks. Watch the original Hitchcock movie, and this is bypassed.
I don't even know where to start... Probably better because Hitchcock’s Psycho is one of my favorite movies. Watching it after so many years, you still experience a range of feelings, and in some places, just breathtaking with tension.
I couldn’t decide what to do with this movie. I wanted to approach the process more objectively, not judged by an offended fan. So you need to evaluate the movie without reference to the original (if possible). So, we have a lot of famous actors, a budget of 60 million, a famous director and the idea to re-make a cult film. It seems that everything should lead to a good effect, but this is how it does not work out. We are told that the action takes place in '98, and the clothes and surroundings show the end of the '70s with their riot of colors (here and tweed jackets, and brightly colorful dresses, and fedora on the head of a private detective, and much more). Well, come on, you can close your eyes, maybe a special move like this. But how to explain that a two-meter boogie with a self-confident face (Vince Vaughn) is a “mommy son”? Or that in two bundles of hundred-dollar bills that fit in the newspaper, 400,000 cash, and for this amount you need a separate bag! And will anyone tell me what two scenes were inserted when the detective was killed?
The biggest miscalculation, the director made taking on the main roles of Vaughn and Hatch. They're not bad actors, just images don't suit them. If the overplaying Hech can still be tolerated, then the thug Vaughn does not fit in with the shy recluse and hen-heeled, which his character should be. The same Perkins (oh, it did not work without parallels), was the perfect Bates, although it did not correspond to the book counterpart.
I think Van Sant just didn’t understand the essence of the masterpiece called Psycho. After all, it is not a big budget or color film, all this master suspense could invest in his film. It's about individuality, the soul, so to speak, your own vision. To put it simply: redrawing the Mona Lisa, Da Vinche will not ...
Outcome: For those of you who haven’t seen Hitchcock’s version, it’s a youth thriller. For fans to be careful, it can be disappointing.
6 out of 10
So that the future masterpiece of Alfred Hitchcock called “Psycho” could still come out on the screens, it was necessary to try very hard and donate not only to the company, but also to Hitchcock himself, who, for the sake of this project, laid his own house and was ready to give absolutely everything that would “Psycho” was born, including putting his own career and fame on the line (in case of a film failure, the director could be bankrupt and he could hardly make a movie, but in case of success, Alfred further strengthened his fame as a director). As a result, the film was not only able to scare the audience and pay off a large number of times, but also became a real classic, as well as that very cult moment of the film. Sometimes, and today, you can see some “strings” of Hitchcock’s masterpiece in the world of cinema. Of course, after the success began to come out and sequels that did not find success, and in 1998 came a very strange remake from Gus Van Sant, which today I wanted to tell.
After stealing $400,000 from his boss, Marion Crane goes on the run. Marion does not cease to panic after he begins to cover the trail, starting with the purchase of a new car, but her stressful state does not go away. Deciding to rest, the heroine stops at the old and unvisited Bates motel. The trusting owner of the motel, Norman Bates, friendly greets the girl, gives her a room and even treats her to dinner. Marion thanks Norman and goes to his place, but this night is her last. Boss Marion just will not lag behind - he hires detective Arbogast in search of a girl, and soon, the news of the disappearance of the girl reaches sister Lila and beloved man Sam, starting their search for Marion.
Gus Van Sant wants to ask only one question: why? I don’t understand what was the point of reshooting the entire Hitchcock film, with slightly changed dialogues, the same scenes, and even making the film in color! A very strange remake, where it is difficult to say at least something about the role of the director of this tape, it could make anyone, you just need to work out the original of 1960 in detail and forward! The script here is the same, except that a little - slightly changing the small details, and in everything else thanks to the screenwriter Joseph Stefano and the author of the book of the same name Robert Bloch, thanks to whose merits the script for the first, cult "Psycho", as well as to this ... remake. The amazing work is shown by the cameraman Christopher Doyle, where he manages to shoot with detailed accuracy the film as it was shot by John L. Russell in the 1960s. The music in the film, as you probably guessed, is the same as in the original from Bernard Herrmann.
The only noticeable change in the film is the cast that burns stars like a New Year's tree - Vince Vaughn, Ann Hech, Julianne Moore, Viggo Mortensen, William H. Macy, Robert Forster, Philip Baker Hall, and you can immediately see what, or rather who went to the big budget of the film, but the actors play well and brightly, thereby something - as pulling the film out of the mud. Vince Vaughn played very well, and if you watch today's films with him and watch Psycho, then we can safely say that Vaughn is not such a similar actor, as well as Julianne Moore with Viggo Mortensen - this duet looks great in the frame.
Of the awards for the film deserved "Golden Raspberry" for "Worst remake or sequel, which in the same year received the "Godzilla" Roland Emmerich and "Avengers" Jerimaya S. Chechick, as well as "Golden Raspberry" for "Worst Director", which is also quite logical, as Van Sant stupidly remade the tape of Hitchcock. It’s funny that Saturn nominated the film for Best Supporting Actress and Best Screenplay, but if you can easily agree with the former, then there are many questions about the latter, because it’s the same script and there is no reason to give the award to the 1998 film.
Total:
“Psycho” by Gus Van Sant is a very strange, stupid and unnecessary remake of a Hitchcock film, in which there is nothing new except a color picture and a star cast, and which is absolutely unnecessary to watch or rather to see and make sure that the original tape is better than its remake. It's hard to say what Van Sant wanted to show the viewer - the showmanship that he could make the same film or pay homage to Alfred Hitchcock or any other goal, but the fact remains that $60 million flew into the trumpet for another pointless remake. If you want to enjoy watching Psycho, then watch the original tape, but if you are very much dissecting curiosity or you are an ardent fan of watching not only the original, but also subsequent sequels and remakes, even the strangest ones, to which I belong, you can take a chance, and so the film is passable.
Funny, I can’t help but draw parallels between Gus Van Sant and Norman Bates. Only unlike the main character of the picture, Gas does not suggest to himself that he is his own mother, but simply puts on a woman's outfit and creates lawlessness.
If about Woody Allen they say: "Bergman has moved into him", then Hitchcock did not move into Van Sant, just Gus decided to try on a maestro costume for Halloween (this continues the theme of dressing up) and simultaneously shoot a remake of one of his most significant offspring.
And if some of the films of the Manhattan intellectual can be considered as remakes of Bergman’s paintings, then Van Sant’s film seems to me nothing more than a parody. Latent, but parody.
Judge for yourself, the tape almost frame-by-frame recreates the original of 1960, but a whole galaxy of moments is so hyperbolized that it seems outright ridicule. Moreover, the object of ridicule are original blunders (for example, a close-up of the enlarged pupils of the corpse as opposed to narrowed ones, as Hitchcock had).
In addition, such moments as the murder of a private detective, the famous scene in the shower, so reek of picturesque and theatrical carelessness that it seems that now the camera will grab a close-up of the killer’s face, and they will be none other than Leslie Nielsen in a women’s wig. And after all this, the film returns to its measured course, making only bewilderment.
As I have already noted, the script is practically untouched, only minor technical changes were made, which are justified by the year of release of the film. Not touched and the original soundtrack, but it sounds somehow inappropriate, as Angelo Badalamenti on a children's morning. Add to these factors and the selection of actors ... again pops up the idea that Van Sant shot not a remake and a parody disguised as a remake (although the new character type again can be written off at the time of the release of the picture).
Gus may have had a lot of fun making this film, maybe he wanted to pay homage to Hitchcock, but got hairy, maybe (and most likely) the commercial side of the issue became decisive, but I tend to think that Van Sant just made fun of the master.
And referring to the final monologue of Bates (where he in the image of the mother “disowns” from his son, in order to cover his dark affairs), I want to throw someone under the door this undescript child under the name “Psycho”, so that in the family of the parent “Pharmacy Cowboy” and “My personal state of Idaho” one spinworm became less, because there is enough of all sorts of prodies and politicians ...
4 out of 10