Pages

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Halloween Horror Marathon: Psycho Franchise Breakdown


Like all of the franchise breakdowns I’m doing this week (but to a far harsher degree here) tracking Norman Bates’ filmic demise only gets worse as time goes on. We start with a masterful film, and end up with one of the most ridiculed movies of all time. And so it is and so it goes. (Note: I have not seen, nor plan to see, the ‘80s TV movie, Bates Motel.)

Psycho (1960)
I’ve spoken at length about the masterpiece that is Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho, namely in my top 10 films of all time list (where it ranks seventh). But also in my best male performances of all time list, and my best looking black and white films list. So… you get it. I’m a fan. Point in fact, I’m not sure there is a film I've seen more times than this one. Yet every time I watch it, there’s something new. I know every spoken line and fluid camera movement by heart, but it never ceases to amaze.

My praise for Psycho is limitless. It is the incarnation of suspense, terror, and, quite frankly, all that is great about the moving picture. In the film, Norman Bates tells us that a hobby is supposed to pass the time, not fill it. Sorry, pal, I disagree. Psycho can fill my time whenever it damn well pleases. A+

Psycho II (1983)
Here’s the thing about Psycho II, from a technical stand point, it’s actually a well-made film. The look, the score, the dread – it all works. Hell, even Anthony Perkins does a fine job reprising his infamous role 20 plus years later. In short, Psycho II manages to pull off what no one thought it could. That is, until it can’t.

Once the film steps away from the simplicity of Norman readjusting to the real world, it becomes an absurd wash. Receiving notes and phone calls from his long since lost Mother, Norman fears that his mask of sanity is about to slip. Despite the efforts of a kind, young waitress who takes a shine to him, our favorite psycho can’t help but think he’ll never be okay. So, is Psycho II a worthy follow up to Psycho? No, of course not. But they could’ve done a hell of a lot worse. D+

Psycho III (1986)
A hell of a lot worse being Psycho III. There isn’t a kind thing I can possibly think to say here. A true disaster from frame one, this Anthony Perkins-directed catastrophe has Norman befriending a faith-tested nun, while trying to keep Mother at bay. Everyone’s favorite Lawnmower Man, Jeff Fahey, shows up as a douchebag wannabe rocker, and decides to fuck with Norman just cause. Or something.

Not much makes sense here, but what’s clear is that Psycho III is one of the most egregious cases of a person(s) attempting to capitalize off the fame and fortune of something great, thereby belittling their careers.

Toward the end of this movie, you get to see Anthony Perkins speak on camera in Mother’s voice, which is something I was always curious to see. And having seen it, I can tell you that part of the magic trick has irreversibly been revealed. Shame. F

Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990)
Well, I’ll give it to Perkins, the man has got tenacity if nothing else. Diving once more into the foray of Norman Bates, Psycho IV has Norman describing his life story to a radio DJ who is doing a program on matricide (the killing of mothers by their children).

Through the film, Norman tells the tale of his mother and her demented ways, which we are privy to via flashback. We see their borderline incestuous relationship, her violent mood swings, and her ultimate, fatal decision to begin dating an abusive man.

To sum the film up succinctly, Psycho IV works when in flashback. Everything in the present, however, fails miserably. In addition to talking at length to the radio personality, Norman has plans to murder his pregnant wife as a means of keeping the Bates sickness in the dark forever. The Beginning is only half worth it. At best. D+

Psycho (1998)
One of the best courses I took in college was Hitchcock Reexamined, in which we watched every film Hitchcock ever helmed, and discussed them at great length. The class had no tests or quizzes, only one single paper. The final (and only) assignment of the class was to write a paper about the films of Alfred Hitchcock. The only rule was that it had to be good. I chose to examine, in laborious detail, Hitchcock’s Psycho against Gus Van Sant’s supposed shot-for-shot remake. And in doing so, the strangest thing happened: I found myself appreciating Van Sant’s version when, up until that point, I had only thought to mock it.

On the director’s commentary for the film, Van Sant said he remade Psycho for one reason. He wanted kids of the time to discover Hitchcock’s masterpiece. He feared that many kids of the day wouldn’t sit down and watch a black and white film from the ‘60s, and that his remake might in some way inspire them to go back and check the original out. Skewed logic, perhaps, but I understand what he’s getting at. (Later, Van Sant famously said that he remade Psycho so that, “No one else would have to.” Fair enough.)

Look, is Vince Vaughn anywhere near as interesting and iconic as Anthony Perkins? No. No one could be. But I like William H. Macy’s pompous take on Arbogast, and Julianne Moore’s moderately sexualized version of Marion Crane’s sister (Van Sant instructed Moore to play the part as a lesbian). There are aspects of this Psycho that I am willing to call decent. Please, don’t get me wrong, this is about as unnecessary a film as there’s ever been, but I’ve certainly seen worse in this franchise. D+

Halloween Horror Marathon Posts:

24 comments:

  1. The original Psycho is clearly one of the great horror films... ever. I've seen parts of the second one and that was pretty dumb. Everything else, I haven't and don't want to. And then there's Gus Van Sant's remake which was interesting but really unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like you've stayed away on purpose which is very very wise. Totally agree about Van Sant's remake.

      Delete
  2. Alex, I'm really starting to feel sorry for yeah... lordy there is no way I could subject myself to all these horrible sequels and prequels. For most of these I just go to blip T.V and watch another poor guy review these godawful horror sequels in a brisk twenty minutes or so.
    Yeah, I remember reading that Tarantino thinks Psycho II is much better than the original. Perhaps that's why I don't respond to his work anywhere near as well as Hitchcock... Take a break man after this is all over, no one would think less of you. Good luck on continuing, and I cannot wait to hear what you have to say about Cloud Atlas... no matter what.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha, thanks so much Jeff. Trying to fight the good fight here haha.

      I completely forgot what QT said about Psycho II, but now that you mention it, I remember that batshit statement. Ha, oh well.

      Running halloween stuff through Wednesday, Cloud Atlas review on Thursday. Honestly not sure if I liked it yet.

      Delete
    2. Ha, yeah it's one of those movies... take your time to gather your thoughts on it. Please check out my own thoughts on it.

      Delete
  3. I only recently found out about the Psycho sequels. That sounds stupid.
    Well I do love the original Psycho a lot. Norman Bates= fav. villain. I kind of appreciate the Gus Van Sant one for the same reasons you have put.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate Van Sant's version too. It honestly takes a lot of balls to do that. Some people think he made it for cash money, but that isn't true. His cut was not much at all.

      Skip the Psycho sequels!

      Delete
  4. The original Psycho is clearly the only masterpiece here, but I didn't hate the remake. "Unnecessary" describes it perfectly though. From what I've seen of the sequels, I agree completely. I'd watch the remake again before I'd watch them in their entirety.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good rule of thumb: see the remake before you dare venture into the sequels. They are lame and take away from the efficacy of the masterful original.

      Delete
  5. Well, I've only seen the first in the series, and based on this post, I'd say that's for the best. :-) And yes, the original is definitely a classic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you've only seen the first, then you are on the right track! I cannot recommend any of the sequels. At all.

      Delete
  6. So there seems to be a theme here: the best of the series is a masterpiece, everything else utter crap. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct. Some diamonds in the rough, but they're more like fugazi jewels, not the real deal.

      Delete
  7. Why wait 20+ years until they made those Psycho sequels, any idea? Perhaps it had an impact on the rights that Hitchcock died in 1980, something like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah I remember hearing something about that. Still doesn't make 'em necessary, ya dig?

      Delete
  8. Excellent article! I also don't hate Psycho remake - Vaughn is awful, but you know what? Heche is really good, Moore, Mortensen and Macy are fun to watch and it's overall an entertaining movie - unnecessary, sure, but still fun. Same goes for Diabolique - the original is amazing, but the remake with Stone and Adjani, as unnecessary as it is, is wicked fun and I could watch it over and over.

    BTW have you heard they are making TV series about Bates? He will be played by Freddie Highmore O_o But Vera Farmiga will be the mother, so I'm going to have to see that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! Agree on both points, Van Sant's Psycho is fun, as is the Diabolique remake. I can find enjoyment in them both.

      I do remember hearing when Farmiga was cast as Mother for that show, but Highmore... wow, that's a risk. Charlie grew up, huh?

      Delete
  9. Even though I find it absolutely ridiculous that multiple sequels were made for Psycho, I kind of still want to see them. Especially since you mentioned Jeff Fahey is in III. That's gotta be at least mildly entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was exactly my thought process a few years back. Right when Van Sant's remake came out, I watched all the sequels for the first time. Meh.

      Dude, if you are of the school of thought that Fahey is the kind of actor that is so bad he's good, you'll fucking LOVE Psycho III. It is one of the worst performances I've ever seen (think: butt naked on a shitty motel bed, covering his junk with a red table lamp.... yeah).

      Delete
  10. In a recent interview with Van Sant, he said something to the regard that he remade Psycho as an experiment. Just to see if he actually could do something like the original (or at least that's how I interpreted his statement). I have yet to see his remake, but as a fan of a good portion of Van Sant's work I am somewhat interested in it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And if you're interested, I'd say give it a go. It certainly isn't the worst remake I've seen, it just feels so damn unnecessary. But it is well made, for sure.

      Delete
  11. I'm a little disappointed that you didn't enjoy Psycho 2 as much as I did. If the first Psycho wasn't released and Psycho 2 stood on its own, I think people would've reacted differently. I thought the twist about Norman's mother was great and the ending was FANTASTIC. I would give it a B-. Very solid film.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, looking back, a D+ is a little on the harsh side, I suppose. It isn't a horrible film, but I didn't really dig the mother/twist bit as much as you. Either way, no where near as bad as Part III.

      Delete