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