Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

It felt the film was moving in circles and not really going anymore. The dialogue about Norman's mother became annoyingly repetitive and the character's actions became questionable. This was boring. Nothing about this yawner is credible.

Okay, so I'm a big Alfred Hitchcock fan. He's my filmmaking idol and I owe so much to him. One of my favorites of his is Psycho, which I really loved. Naturally, I would check out the sequels.Usually, a sequel to a really great movie (especially if the original director is not involved) is doomed to fail. But not always. Definitely not in this movie. I actually enjoyed Psycho II. I liked how it continued the story and turned Norman Bates into a sympathetic character this time around. He's trying to start fresh and live a normal life, but his demons still haunt him and some of the townspeople remind him of his horrid past. This story is quite fresh and original. I like how Norman is trying to change. I'm so glad Universal chose to not follow the Psycho II book, which was about Norman going to Hollywood. That would have been stupid.Not only is the story good, but once again, Anthony Perkins nails the part of Norman Bates. He still acts so awkwardly. The music, done by Jerry Goldsmith, is also good. But nothing can top Bernard Herrmann's famous score of the original. Like the first film, it had a great twist ending that you didn't see coming, but one thing I hated about the ending is the shark-jumping moment where we find out that (spoiler alert) Norma Bates didn't give birth to Norman. It was her sister. Yeah. I'm just as appalled as you are.Overall, this is a pretty good sequel that doesn't deserve the hate that it gets. Of course, it's not trying to top the Alfred Hitchcock classic. It's trying to do its own thing. Also, it's not a cheap retread of the previous film. That was saved for the next movie.

...because it's not a fair comparison. Hitchcock is long gone.If, however, you judge Psycho II on strictly its own merits, it's pretty good. Or as good as I think a sequel to Psycho could ever be.Anthony Perkins is a large reason for this. He still has it. Many closed doors and strange passageways etched onto his face. Perkins delivers.Jerry Goldsmith - the composer....comes up with something COMPLETELY different than Hermann did. And once again, on its own and without judging it or comparing it to the original, it's quite beautiful and sad.Now I can't say much for the sequels that continued past this one, but Psycho II is a guilty pleasure of mine.

it is a great challenge to continue a masterpiece. but Richard Franklin does a great job and the performances of Vera Miles and Anthony Perkins represents the pillars of a decent thriller. the vulnerability of Norman Bates, the revenge, the tension, the ambiguity of atmosphere, the colors of house - all are perfect ingredients of a drama who gives new senses to the classic by Hitchcock. Meg Tilly is the great surprise, in a provocative role who use different shadows and nuances to create a special character. the film of the road to the normal life of Bates, interesting , credible exploration of the sides of the lead character, end of his story because the circle seems be complete.