The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

This is one of the strangest and most unnecessary experiments I've ever come across, and it serves as unintentional proof of why some films simply MUST be shot in black-and-white to work.

This is hailed as one of the worst movies ever made since it's the exact replica of one of the greatest movies ever made. But if it's the exact movie, how could it be bad? I actually prefer this over the original. I'm not actually sure why, I just do. If you like the original I don't see how you could hate this.

Director Gus Van Sant's much-maligned 1998 release "Psycho" has gone on to attain great infamy and malice in the world of film. A shot- for- shot remake of the Hitchcock masterpiece, the film was plagued by negative buzz and general dismissal before it was even released, and was eventually met with reaction that ranged from confused apathy to infuriated rage when it finally came out. It was a film that people not only hated... they took active pride and indeed seemed to relish in how much they hated it. Slapping the film with constant insults and questioning over and over why it was "necessary." Chastising it for the futility of doing the exact same thing over again while also bemoaning the few times the film made changes because it was "tampering" with a classic. Suggesting the actors involved never work again for daring to try and replicate the original. People love to hate this film, and it's one of those movies that you're expected to automatically loathe, whether or not you've even seen it. Essentially, it's a film that you're just not allowed to like or enjoy... and if you do, you're simply "wrong."Now don't get me wrong or think I'm in any way building up to an attempt at defending the movie itself. Because I'm not. This is an unnecessary remake of an immortal classic. It does fail to even come close to matching the high quality of the original work. And in the end, it's merely a strange little anecdote in the history of film, that's remembered more for how bizarre it was than for its quality. But I do think the film has some inherent value that makes it more worthwhile than many will give it credit for. And I do think this movie was ultimately something that needed to happen. Because even though the movie itself is a failure and is a wholly mediocre watch when viewed on its own merits, what it represents is a fascinating experiment that presents many hours of thought, discussion and debate.A carbon copy of the original classic, the film follows a group of characters, including an embezzler named Marion Crane (Anne Heche), her sister Lila (Julianne Moore), and Marion's lover Sam (Vigo Mortensen), as they enter an intricate web of death and deceit... all revolving around a troubled motel clerk (Vince Vaughn) with what can only be described as the worst "mommy issues" of all time. Outside of some minor cosmetic changes in dialog and style to bring the film into the 90's, and a few characters being slightly reinterpreted, the film is exactly the same as the one we had seen so long ago. And that seems to be the sort-of point behind the movie. It's as if director Gus Van Sant is playing a carefully crafted game, in which he tries to see if quality can be precisely replicated through reproduction of story, dialog and circumstance. He wants to see if he too can make a classic by just following the blueprints. And that's ultimately the failing of the film- it forgets one key issue. The degree of randomness, spontaneity and pure luck that comes as an organic byproduct of film production is vital, and is a part of what makes a film work. And this is lost when trying to create an exact duplicate. Thus, the remake merely feels pale and lacks humanity. It's almost robotic.But... and this is a very important thing to note... I do think that this was an experiment worth taking, and that in being such a fundamental failure, it teaches many valuable lessons and generates some great points of discussion. The concept of a shot-for-shot remake was altogether foreign at the time of release... even alien in a way. Nobody had really seen it done to such a great extent before. And this movie proved why it is such an inherently flawed idea. You can't replicate genius through almost mathematical duplication. And thus the viewer is left with some genuinely burning questions. When is a remake necessary... or even building on that, when is a film itself necessary? What makes one thing brilliant while another thing trite? How can characters and concepts be interpreted in different ways, and what constitutes the most valid approach to a character or story? I've watched Van Sant's "Psycho" several times, and every time it's finished, I find these thoughts flowing through my mind, eating away at me. The original is just such a tour de force, while the remake falls so flat... It's completely fascinating to me. And I do think that the fact the film leaves me thinking lends it more value than many will credit it for.As a film on its own, it's a 3 out of 10. But the interesting production and discussion it inspires almost make me want to raise the score a bit. I won't for the sake of fairness. But I will encourage people who haven't given the movie a chance or have just dismissed it without seeing it give it another shot. Watch it with a more critical eye and allow it to plant some questions in your mind. It's a failed experiment. But it's also a completely fascinating one that I'm glad exists.

the purpose of this remake is the red line who challenge the viewer. not the idea to make , shot by shot, same Psycho - it could be a form of homage for the original. not the bizarre choice of Anne Heche for a Marion who remains out of her entire film. not the small details who represents differences by original. maybe, not the colors or acting .but the impression, in few scenes, to be a parody. or childish game. sure, the idea of Gus Van Sant could be noble, generous, exercise to translate in images for new generation a classic gem. but the result is far to be the best. or, maybe, in few moments, decent. something missing. something real important - its soul. a film like a corpse because it not gives more than a kind of experiment, the fight of Ann Heche and Vince Vaughn with too heavy roles. a good point - maybe William Macy to do a credible Arbogast and, sure, Julianne Moore noble intentions.