•
Rating:
THE REVIEW
Honestly, this is a film that perhaps shouldn't exist.
In the sense that, it's not the worst in the world, but it simply adds practically nothing original.
If you want the plot, it's that of Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho", and up to this point, it could also work, but the real problem is that it's a carbon copy of the original film: same shots, same lines, and nothing that's not in Hitchcock's film.
In fact, in my opinion, even in copying it's decidedly worse: Norman's wig is poorly set, Vince Vaughn is not as unsettling as Anthony Perkins, and then, honestly, how can you touch a masterpiece, aged divinely, to simply redo it in color?
Actually, there is a small change, to tell the truth: Norman, while spying on Marion as she undresses to take a shower, if in the original he looked dazed, now in the remake he masturbates. 60 million dollars for this doesn't seem like a good investment to me (and rightly it was a flop)
Loading comments slowly
Summary by Bot
This review critiques Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho, pointing out its lack of originality and poor execution. It is described as a near shot-for-shot copy of Hitchcock's classic, but inferior in acting and detail. The reviewer questions the value of remaking a timeless film without fresh perspective, noting it was a commercial failure.
Gus Van Sant
Gus Van Sant is an American film director known for moving between Hollywood projects and independent, formally adventurous cinema. Reviews here focus on his minimalist long-take style, youth-centered stories, and films that often resist easy moral conclusions.22 Reviews
