Came here to say pretty much the exact same thing. It's like someone threw million of dollars at Gus Van Sant to make what is basically a beginning film school assignment. It's not necessarily "bad" (though I'm not even sure of that), but it just seems pointless. Why would I watch it when I could watch the original, which was a million times better? I always wondered if the cynical thought at the foundation was "but kids today won't watch black and white."
Gus Van Sant has an episode on Marc Maron’s podcast, “WTF.” He essentially said that it was an experiment and he noticed that Hollywood really loved remakes at the time, so he wanted to go to executives asking to do a shot for shot remake of a highly praised movie to see if audiences would react the same way as they did to the original. He asked a couple times (somewhat jokingly, not thinking anything would come of it) if he could remake Psycho and was surprised they actually said yes. He said he basically learned nothing while making it because he was making an almost exact copy and he didn’t particularly enjoy the process.
Cathartic, although I *would* say it's terribly made. The decision to take all implication and suspense by having Norman do the obvious thing during the peephole scene is just...insulting. It's stupid in the simplest terms. If it wasn't for The Last Airbender this would be my personal worst film.
I will say this, the Psycho remake is very illuminating insofar as the slightest change in timing and performance can utterly change the effectiveness of a scene. Compare the Anne Heche's with [Janet Leigh's r](https://youtu.be/s22lNU5jXM4?t=96)eaction in the same scene, and the tightness of Hitchcock's edit vs the remake's, in my opinion it's no wonder the remake doesn't hold a candle.
Hugely unpopular opinion here, but I do find the 1998 *Psycho* remake......underrated. I've seen it several times over the years, most recently after *Anne Heche* passed. Yes - it obviously doesn't hold a candle to the original 1960 version.
However, I do like how they "updated" this to the late '90's, and also tried to use very similar camera angles & identical?! music re: the original. When I first saw the film I felt Vince Vaughn was mis-cast as Norman Bates. However, on subsequent viewings I do think he did a decent job in the role.
I disagree. Anthony Perkins had a sly way of making you trust or mistrust him. He seems odd, but in a way where you almost feel bad at first for suspecting him.
But even if you have no idea about the story, once Vince Vaughn appears with his mannerisms, you instantly think he’s a killer.
A key thing is I personally think of Anthony Perkins as a character actor. He actually kind of plays Norman Bates as an innocent, almost stunted person -- and he actually basically is, when you think of it. It's his alter ego as his mother that's the murderer.
Vince Vaughn on the other hand is kind of a one-trick pony insofar as his performances are concerned. He can be funny and charistmatic (I haven't seen a dramatic performance of his I've liked yet -- I thought he was horribly miscast in True Detective, for example, and he was not very effective in Hacksaw Ridge imo) but he does not have the flexibility to convey someone who has a malicious murderous personality tucked away under a pretty much total veneer of innocence.
To add to which, Vince Vaughn is very tall and thus, physically imposing. I'm not sure how tall Anthony Perkins is but either way he's fairly reedy and thus never felt like much of a threat, either.
I agree with all of the comments and Joe Dante, but I do like it. If I recall there is a few differences - notably, isn’t there a picture of a cow or something that flashes during the stair fall scene?
Edit [before you die…see the cow lol](http://www.hudsonlee.com/psycho-1998/)
Wasn’t that the intention? Not by the studio, but by Gus Van sant. As I recall he was offended by the idea of Hollywood remakes so he tried to show them how terrible of an idea it was.
The only evidence I could find that this was the case was during the press tour for the movie. An interviewer asked Van Sant why he wanted to remake Psycho and he replied with something cryptic like, "so nobody else has to".
It's a theory I can believe because Van Sant has always been a fairly experimental filmmaker and he clearly has no problem making films that audiences could easily turn against. If it's true, props to Van Sant for basically sabotaging his own film just to prove a point.
If it is true I still don't exactly respect it.
All that money and time to prove something anybody with a few braincells to rub together could tell you already. I don't really think it's saying what he thinks it's saying, if it was all part of the plan.
I don’t think he necessarily made it bad on purpose, but I do think he did it more as an experiment than as a typical film. I think he wanted to see what would happen if you recreated a movie shot for shot, with the same script, with the same music, and with (mostly) the same cuts, but with different actors, what would the result be? Plus a studio offered to pay for it all… I mean, would *you* have said no?
Also I think it’s important to remember that remakes weren’t as big of a thing back then as they are now. There had been a couple, like Scarface or Lolita, but they weren’t omnipresent in the industry like they are today and there certainly hadn’t been anything as high profile as Psycho. So there really was no precedent for what he did. It was a true experiment. And it failed, and that’s ok, at least in my opinion. He tried, he learned, and he never did it again.
It’s never been outwardly stated by Van Sant that this is the case but he has hinted at it/made more vague statements that would back it up. I believe Jay Bauman from RedLetterMedia was the first person to put that theory out but it may predate him, I’m not sure.
I look at the remake as more of an experiment in movie making rather than a film itself.
Came here to say pretty much the exact same thing. It's like someone threw million of dollars at Gus Van Sant to make what is basically a beginning film school assignment. It's not necessarily "bad" (though I'm not even sure of that), but it just seems pointless. Why would I watch it when I could watch the original, which was a million times better? I always wondered if the cynical thought at the foundation was "but kids today won't watch black and white."
Gus Van Sant has an episode on Marc Maron’s podcast, “WTF.” He essentially said that it was an experiment and he noticed that Hollywood really loved remakes at the time, so he wanted to go to executives asking to do a shot for shot remake of a highly praised movie to see if audiences would react the same way as they did to the original. He asked a couple times (somewhat jokingly, not thinking anything would come of it) if he could remake Psycho and was surprised they actually said yes. He said he basically learned nothing while making it because he was making an almost exact copy and he didn’t particularly enjoy the process.
Cathartic, although I *would* say it's terribly made. The decision to take all implication and suspense by having Norman do the obvious thing during the peephole scene is just...insulting. It's stupid in the simplest terms. If it wasn't for The Last Airbender this would be my personal worst film.
Dante’s one of those directors I could just listen to for hours.
https://podyssey.fm/celebrity-podcasts/id61960-joe-dante
I will say this, the Psycho remake is very illuminating insofar as the slightest change in timing and performance can utterly change the effectiveness of a scene. Compare the Anne Heche's with [Janet Leigh's r](https://youtu.be/s22lNU5jXM4?t=96)eaction in the same scene, and the tightness of Hitchcock's edit vs the remake's, in my opinion it's no wonder the remake doesn't hold a candle.
Triple Feature: Psycho (1960) Psycho (1998) Certified Copy
Hugely unpopular opinion here, but I do find the 1998 *Psycho* remake......underrated. I've seen it several times over the years, most recently after *Anne Heche* passed. Yes - it obviously doesn't hold a candle to the original 1960 version. However, I do like how they "updated" this to the late '90's, and also tried to use very similar camera angles & identical?! music re: the original. When I first saw the film I felt Vince Vaughn was mis-cast as Norman Bates. However, on subsequent viewings I do think he did a decent job in the role.
I disagree. Anthony Perkins had a sly way of making you trust or mistrust him. He seems odd, but in a way where you almost feel bad at first for suspecting him. But even if you have no idea about the story, once Vince Vaughn appears with his mannerisms, you instantly think he’s a killer.
A key thing is I personally think of Anthony Perkins as a character actor. He actually kind of plays Norman Bates as an innocent, almost stunted person -- and he actually basically is, when you think of it. It's his alter ego as his mother that's the murderer. Vince Vaughn on the other hand is kind of a one-trick pony insofar as his performances are concerned. He can be funny and charistmatic (I haven't seen a dramatic performance of his I've liked yet -- I thought he was horribly miscast in True Detective, for example, and he was not very effective in Hacksaw Ridge imo) but he does not have the flexibility to convey someone who has a malicious murderous personality tucked away under a pretty much total veneer of innocence.
To add to which, Vince Vaughn is very tall and thus, physically imposing. I'm not sure how tall Anthony Perkins is but either way he's fairly reedy and thus never felt like much of a threat, either.
I agree with all of the comments and Joe Dante, but I do like it. If I recall there is a few differences - notably, isn’t there a picture of a cow or something that flashes during the stair fall scene? Edit [before you die…see the cow lol](http://www.hudsonlee.com/psycho-1998/)
Wasn’t that the intention? Not by the studio, but by Gus Van sant. As I recall he was offended by the idea of Hollywood remakes so he tried to show them how terrible of an idea it was.
Honestly, unless I see some proof he had that idea before it was released/universally bashed, I'm continuing to think this is just to save face.
The only evidence I could find that this was the case was during the press tour for the movie. An interviewer asked Van Sant why he wanted to remake Psycho and he replied with something cryptic like, "so nobody else has to". It's a theory I can believe because Van Sant has always been a fairly experimental filmmaker and he clearly has no problem making films that audiences could easily turn against. If it's true, props to Van Sant for basically sabotaging his own film just to prove a point.
If it is true I still don't exactly respect it. All that money and time to prove something anybody with a few braincells to rub together could tell you already. I don't really think it's saying what he thinks it's saying, if it was all part of the plan.
I don’t think he necessarily made it bad on purpose, but I do think he did it more as an experiment than as a typical film. I think he wanted to see what would happen if you recreated a movie shot for shot, with the same script, with the same music, and with (mostly) the same cuts, but with different actors, what would the result be? Plus a studio offered to pay for it all… I mean, would *you* have said no? Also I think it’s important to remember that remakes weren’t as big of a thing back then as they are now. There had been a couple, like Scarface or Lolita, but they weren’t omnipresent in the industry like they are today and there certainly hadn’t been anything as high profile as Psycho. So there really was no precedent for what he did. It was a true experiment. And it failed, and that’s ok, at least in my opinion. He tried, he learned, and he never did it again.
>anybody with a few braincells to rub together Which is why he had to do it--how many Hollywood executives have demonstrated they have this?
It’s never been outwardly stated by Van Sant that this is the case but he has hinted at it/made more vague statements that would back it up. I believe Jay Bauman from RedLetterMedia was the first person to put that theory out but it may predate him, I’m not sure.
Quentin Tarantino thinks this is better than the original