Review: Psycho(1998)
Back To www.currentfilm.com
Psycho
I wanted to like it. I tried to like it. That said, I just didn't really care for Gus Van Sant's remake of the classic Hitchcock thriller. It's not Van Sant's fault, and it's definitely not the fault of the actors; it's simply the fault of Hollywood itself, I think. I think that Van Sant seems to realize and almost admit himself, that this isn't a movie, it's more of a high-concept marketing ploy. The director himself hasn't tarnished the original film with this remake, but one has to ask quite a few things after sitting through it; "what's the point?"; I don't see the point of remaking a film like this for today's audiences: it seems geared towards the younger crowds that weren't around when the film first was released. Interesting concept, but I don't see these crowds having much interest in a direct remake; it's not like the situation we went through a few years back when "Romeo+Juliet" was given a burst of splash and color. Since it's likely that most people know the whole story of Norman Bates, I think I'll make this review more a discussion of the concept of remaking the film as well as it's performances. I'm not saying I want a sudden burst of energy in "Psycho" like what was done with "Romeo+Juliet", but I would have liked to have seen something different or an update here and there, even then I'm not sure anything like this is even neccessary, but if you're going to make a shot-by-shot remake of the original, why not just re-release the original? I guess I just don't understand the point. "Vertigo" and "Gone With The Wind" as well as other classics have been given a remastered edition recently and have hit theaters again with critical and commerical acclaim, I could definitely see the same thing being done here, if possible. This film just seems like an attempt to grab a younger audience's interest and I just don't see it happening; I see adults going to this film and likely enjoying it, but that's about it.
Again, back to my ideas about the point of remaking the film; maybe it's the fact that I think there's a quiet and subtle nature about Van Sant's imagery as a director that makes him a good choice for a shot-by-shot remake of the film, and that's what he did here; but why remake shot by shot a film that will never be duplicated? I would have liked to have seen what a different director who gives his films a different, colder mood would have done; someone like Bryan Singer, whose "Usual Suspects" brought the crime thriller drama back to life. There is a certain cold glow that Singer brought to Los Angeles that I think would have translated well to the cold glow of the rooms of the Bates motel. I did like some of the cinematography in this adaptation, but there's something lacking; a sharpness or a focus that this adapation lacks, an energy that the original had that just isn't there for this film. The best word to describe this film as a whole is simply a curiosity for people who enjoyed the original film.
There are definitely good performances here; I especially liked Vince Vaughn in the Norman Bates role(for an especially outstanding performance by Vaughn and Anne Heche as well, check out "Return To Paradise" when it hits video shelves in early 1999). Also good here are excellent actors such as the lovely, beautiful and talented(and also my favorite actress) Julianne Moore, Anne Heche,Robert Forster and Viggo Mortgensen.
See it for the score as well; the familiar "Psycho" music sounds incredible in today's six channel digital sound( I personally viewed the film in Dolby Digital). There's a feeling of almost agressive following along with the original in this film of how it was remade, as if everything was to be exactly 100% similar, with a few exceptions.
This remake definitely shouldn't really bother any of the hardcore fans of the original; most might walk out of it simply wondering what the point of it all was, but I think only Gus Van Sant could answer that question. I wanted to like this film, but after thinking about it, I walked out somewhat indifferent at the end. I didn't "not like it", but I didn't leave thinking how much I'd enjoyed the past couple of hours.I liked looking at the visuals and the camerawork as well as the acting, but there's a spark here that I just felt never really got lit.
3 stars.