Too much of everything

One of my all time favorites.

Absolutely the worst movie.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

The 1960 'Psycho' is one of Alfred Hitchcock's greatest films and while it is high up in my list of "scariest films of all time" it doesn't stop it from being a personal favourite. Mainly for the cinematography, Hitchcock's direction, the music score and Anthony Perkins.Before seeing either of the sequels, there was the feeling of "what was the point? The 1960 film was perfect as it was and didn't need a sequel let alone three as well as a television film and a remake". Actually found myself very pleasantly surprised by 'Psycho II', and despite reviews being very, very mixed (leaning towards the negative) 'Psycho III' was also better than anticipated. The previous two films are superior from personal opinion but there are sequels out there that disgrace their originals far more than this does.'Psycho III' could have been better certainly. The nudity was overused and not necessary, and while the gore is suitably shocking and handled more tastefully it also could have been used less. The religious elements added absolutely nothing and to me they actually confused and muddled the story.Some of the dialogue is laughably cheesy and rambles, Norman Bates' also fairly repetitive.However, 'Psycho III' has a huge amount to like. It once again boasts some very stylish and moody cinematography and the setting is still eerie even in colour. Carter Burwell's score is very haunting and in its best parts sends chills down the spine.The film, as mentioned, is directed by none other by Norman Bates himself Anthony Perkins. His direction is assured and more than capable without being mind-blowing. The story is paced neatly and intrigues throughout with some nods to the original 'Psycho', an opening reminiscent of 'Vertigo', some clever darkly wicked humour and some suitably creepy and suspenseful set-pieces, the phone booth scene coming very close to rivalling the original's iconic shower scene in terrifying horror. Personally didn't think it was that melodramatic or excessive, and that only the religious elements and nudity had an air of vulgarity.It's not just Perkins who gives an as expected wonderful performance in his most famous role, and he has not lost any of what made the performance so unforgettable before. Diana Scarwid is poignant with her chemistry with Perkins providing some heart, and Jeff Fahey plays a sleaze to perfection.On the whole, not a great film but could have been so much worse. 6/10 Bethany Cox

The ending of Psycho II left viewers in no doubt about Norman Bates' mental state: he was as mad as a box of frogs. Part III, directed by the series' star Anthony Perkins, sees Norman struggling to stay his stabbing hand when pretty ex-nun Maureen (Diana Scarwid) arrives at his motel, reminding the schizo killer of Marion Crane, his first victim. Sneaking into Maureen's room, carving knife at the ready, Norman discovers the young woman in the bath having slashed her wrists, and saves her life instead of taking it. Once out of hospital, Maureen returns to the motel where she and Norman gradually fall for each other. But 'mother' isn't about to let her son fraternise with a no good slut…Perkins' directorial debut, Psycho III is an assured piece of work, with lots of neat nods to the original movie, some terrific moments of black humour, and plenty of stylish visual touches, with particularly great use of colour throughout. It is true that the film is more 'slasher' than the previous films, with Norman upping the body count this time around, but the trashier elements—gore and gratuitous nudity—are offset by more nuanced moments between Norm and his mother, and the touching yet tragic relationship between two very emotionally troubled individuals. Excellent support comes from Jeff Fahey as Norman's sleazy assistant manager Duane Duke, and Roberta Maxwell as nosy reporter Tracy.7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.

Anthony Perkins makes his directorial debut in this second sequel of the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock horror classic Psycho and the third film of the Psycho film franchise entitled Psycho III.Perkins also stars and relives his role as Norman Bates together with Diana Scarwid, Jeff Fahey and Roberta Maxwell.The story happens one month after the events of Psycho II.Norman Bates still runs the famous Bates Motel with the corpse of Emma Spool just around the corner.He unexpectedly falls in love with a suicidal nun,who just came along to stay in the motel along with Duke Drifter.Meanwhile,a reporter tries to solve the disappearance of Emma Spool and comes to talk to Norman.Things turn weird when Norman is haunted by the body of Emma and starts slashing numerous people.While many consider it a weak sequel,I find it engaging and entertaining.It may not be as good as the Hitchcock original nor the second sequel Psycho II but I still find it worth the view.Perkins did a wonderful job in his directorial debut as we get to learn more about Norman particularly his psychology as a killer and the influence brought about by "Mother" the original killer.What is really new is the humor brought by it especially the relationship of Norman and Maureen Coyle,the suicidal nun and who has a striking resemblance to Marion Crane.Apparently,this brought interest to the viewer because it was the relationship that should have taken place between Norman and Marion Crane in the first film if the latter had not been killed.Aside from that,it was also interesting to see it now being a slasher flick especially with Norman now identified as the real killer,the dead corpse of his real mother now being the real influence it to his psychotic behavior and how Norman killed the numerous residents of the Bates Motel.In the end,the third film brought fruition of what the viewers thought should be happening in the first film. I would like to credit the screenwriter Charles Edward Pogue and Perkins for doing a wonderful addition to the Psycho franchise.

Just finished watching the third Psycho after watching the first two and even if you can't say it's a bad movie it is not the same as the other two. The first one will always stay a classic. The sequel after so many years wasn't bad either. In the third one I just thought there were a couple of bad actors and lines so it can't be as good as the others. Anthony Perkins though, he will always do great as the psychotic Norman Bates. He has the perfect face for it and his acting is still as believable as in the other ones. To me they should just have limited it to the first two. Don't need to milk out the story more. But if you are a die hard fan you might just like this one as well.