A mentally disturbed man, who roomed with the late Norman Bates at the state lunatic asylum, inherits the legendary Bates Motel after the death of Norman and tries to fix it up to make it a respectable business.
23-year-old Meera meets a guy in a bus on her way to work. A casual fun chat with him soon triggers off a series of unpleasant events and Meera realizes that she has become an obsession for... See full summary »
Marion Crane steals a lot of cash from a man whom her boss is in business with. On the way to see her boyfriend, she stops off by an old motel, run by the odd Norman Bates. She is murdered in the shower. Her sister, boyfriend, and a private investigator try to find out where she is, while we learn more about Norman Bates. Written by
Jordan Sharp <firstname.lastname@example.org>
During filming, Gus Van Sant brought along a DVD player and played the original Psycho (1960), and they used it for reference. When he spotted a mistake (a door opening without a key), van Sant decided to put the same mistake into his film. See more »
The cars parked on the street as seen from inside Marion's car do not match the cars as seen from outside. See more »
Samuel 'Sam' Loomis:
You never did eat your lunch, did you?
I better get back to the office. These extended lunch hours give my boss excess acid.
Samuel 'Sam' Loomis:
Why don't you call your boss and tell him you're taking the rest of the afternoon off? Its Friday, anyway - and hot.
What do I do with my free afternoon? Walk you to the airport?
See more »
Some of the opening credits split apart, just as the original's did. They segue into the opening shot of Phoenix, Arizona. See more »
Well, I have to agree with the critics on this one, who all said "leave it alone." Why they had to make this re-make of the 1960 "Psycho," I don't know. My guess is they wanted to reach a new audience and thought color and modern-day actors were the answer, since those were the main changes. The dialog was the same and the story the same.
On one hand, I applaud them for not making this over with a lot of profanity and nudity and making it a sleazy film. Yet, if they were going to keep everything the same, why bother when you weren't going to improve on Tony Perkins, Janet Leigh and the original cast?
Did they honestly think Vince Vaughn was going to be as good or better than Perkins? Are you kidding? Ann Heche, with her short mannish-haircut, is going to be better than Leigh? I don't think so!
Yes, the colors were pretty in here but it's the black-and-white photography that helped make the 1960 version so creepy to begin with. It's perfect for the story, not a bunch of greens and pinks! Once again, I guess the filmmakers were banking on an audience that never saw the original.
This was just a stupid project that never should have gotten off the ground.
63 of 88 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?