Monday, June 8, 2020

Psycho Analyses


Psycho (1960)
Psycho II
Psycho III
Psycho IV: The Beginning
I decided to revisit this series after seeing a post about Psycho II (damn social media) and that I haven’t seen them in a while.  I didn’t watch the 1998 remake (at least my OCD doesn’t always get the better of me) because I remember it being a shot-for-shot remake in color with different performers, and that just makes it the very definition of an unnecessary remake; I watched it one time and that’s it for me!  As for the original black-and-white film, it is labeled a horror classic.  Classic, as I’ve said either in person or in one of my reviews, is a very subjective term, often coined by historians and society at large.  Just because something is labeled a “classic” doesn’t mean I’m going to like it, nor should I feel like I have to (I’m not a fan of Citizen Kane and I’ve watched it twice).  I do like the original Psycho, yes, and it’s still a good film to watch despite feeling dated (what do you expect from a movie made 60 years ago?).  I am a fan of Alfred Hitchcock, even some of his work made before Psycho; I don’t believe I’ve seen all of his movies, but I’ve seen many and am a fan of enough to call myself a fan (I’m always interested in seeing films labeled as “Hitchcockian”).  Even if you haven’t seen Psycho (or the remake, and I hope the remake isn’t the only version you’ve seen), I’m sure the twist has been revealed in much of pop culture or by word-of-mouth, but I won’t disclose it in case there’s a chance you don’t know.  Do see the original, if so, and skip the remake (OCD be damned; coming from someone with OCD); luckily I grew up in a time when most original films were the only version and I grew to love them before remakes came along.  Sequels, especially for horror and action films, are largely inevitable, and while many may not be as good as the first (often more than not) and/or unnecessary, I don’t hate them as much as remakes.  Psycho II, while not as good as its predecessor, isn’t that bad for a sequel made 23 years later (22 years have passed in the film world).  Psycho III, directed by Norman Bates himself (Anthony Perkins), isn’t bad as well despite not being spectacular; the blood surely spills more than the previous entries.  Psycho IV: The Beginning is a TV movie sequel that’s mostly a prequel via flashbacks.  While I’m not always the biggest fan of prequels, especially when they ruin a film’s overall mystery or are an obvious cash-in, this fourquel wasn’t the worst movie I’ve seen (as a standalone film).  Director Mick Garris, he who was behind other horror films like Critters 2: The Main Course, Sleepwalkers, The Stand, The Shining remake, and Riding the Bullet, adds a bit of credibility to it.  I’d still say it would’ve ended well after Psycho III, if anything, but at least they stopped at IV (for now).  I never got around to watching the Bates Motel series because I never really had a desire to and there were five seasons!  Five ten-episode seasons with a minimal 40-minutes each is an awful long prequel!  According to Wikipedia, there was a TV movie in 1987, also titled Bates Motel, that was a spinoff of the franchise.  Maybe I’ll check that out since it’s only one 95-minute movie.
In conclusion:  Watch Psycho if you haven’t already, even though you might think it’s dated and may not have patience compared to most modern films, and you could waste your time with worse if you decide to have a marathon (I like these movies in the order they were released).  Do skip the remake though, whether you have OCD or not, because it is as unnecessary as they come.  Also, if you are a fan of the original Psycho, or filmmaking in general, check out 78/52, a documentary involving a detailed analysis of the infamous shower scene.  6/7/2020


---Sean O.
6/8/2020

No comments:

Post a Comment