Good movie but grossly overrated

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

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.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

It was quite something of a bitter pill to swallow and having to sit through this frame-by-frame remake of the 1960 classic horror movie.What were they thinking they decided to do this project?It was so hard to take it serious by any account. And the cast had no chance in even matching those in the original movie. Sure, they did a good enough job, but it was just an atrocity towards the original movie. I will say that Anne Heche, Julianne Moore, Viggo Mortensen and William H. Macy were doing great jobs, despite being challenged with an abominable project. It was somewhat more of a strained effort to watch Vince Vaugh trying to waltz through the performance of Normal Bates.This 1998 remake might actually pass as an adequate watch for those not familiar with the original movie. But if you have seen the original movie and if you liked the original movie, then do yourself a favor and stay well clear of this one.I've seen it once before, although I don't recall when or recall how I thought about the movie back then. But I decided to revisit this remake recently, and found it a struggle without end to endure and sit through it. I was cringing so often and it was toe-curling to witness director Gus Van Sant do absolutely no justice to the original "Psycho" movie.

I thought this was a good idea. Use the original screenplay from "Psycho" and we would have a great film. Well we didn't get a great film. What we got is like armature dinner theater. The performances here don't come off well. It all seems like they are rushing things. It feels forced. If you love the original then never watch this.You know one day there will be another remake. I just hope the next time around they change the sexual orientation and genders. Make Marion someone named Marty. Make Norman a repressed homosexual. Then you would make something different and most likely better!

I was unimpressed by this when it first came out, but I thought I'd give it another chance recently and tried to watch it with an open mind. No; it's still not good. And the thing is, it could have been good, if the cast had found something new in the characters. But they mostly didn't, and I think that's because of the extremely questionable casting decisions. Anne Heche in particular seems lost and floundering in her role, and she is not helped by the crew cut that plays up her resemblance to Pee-Wee Herman. Once you see that, you can't unsee it, and it's Pee-Wee as Marion from then on. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates is another bad choice. Anthony Perkins' Norman is superficially likable, and when he turns scary, the transformation is unsettling. Vaughn's Norman is creepy from the beginning, so there's no unsettling shift when he turns out to be a creep. Viggo Mortensen's affected aw-shucks cowboy accent deprives the Sam Loomis character of its needed gravity; and Julianne Moore tries hard to convey the steely desperation that Vera Miles earlier brought to Lila Crane, but in the end just comes off as cranky. Only William H. Macy brings something new and welcome to his role, giving the Arbogast character a refreshing abrasive charm, different from Martin Balsam, but as good if not better. In the supporting roles, there's nothing much to comment on except maybe for James Remar's note-perfect reproduction of the original film's state trooper.This is intended to be a shot-for-shot remake, yet Van Sant felt compelled to add a couple of needless things. For example, we don't need to see Norman masturbating as he looks through the hole in the wall; it's better if his desire is completely frustrated. And having Lila cut loose with martial-arts moves at the end seems like a gratuitous nod to obligatory female empowerment. In any ordinary movie it would be unremarkable, but in this film, when you know it didn't happen in the original, it sticks out like a sore thumb and you know immediately that it was added for the wrong reasons.I'd like to see someone else try this again. It's not really a BAD idea. It's just bad execution.

Have you seen it? No? There is likely a very good reason for that...it stinks.Like nearly ALL the endless remakes and reboots that have been plaguing movie goers for the past decade or so....all this is, is a heartless version of the original.It has no heart.It has no soul.It is a retelling of a film that we all love and cherish...and it adds nothing to the story. It improves nothing but the special effects--which held up very well over time--and in some cases belittles the fans of the original...particularly in the fact that they remade the movie at all, without adding anything clever to it.Like so many other remakes it is a hallow shell of the original.