Psycho Path: The Making of Psycho 1998
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 лют 2019
- Documentary included on the DVD of Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake released on 1998. This documentary covers behind the scenes of the making of the infamous shot-by-shot remake of Psycho.
I DON'T OWN THIS VIDEO. PROPERTY OF UNIVERSAL PICTURES AND IMAGINE ENTERTAIMENT. EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. PLEASE GO BUY THE FILM IF YOU ENJOYED THIS.
Rest in peace, Anne Heche. 🙏
R.I.P Anne Heche 😔🙏🏻🥲
Prob one of the best behind the scenes docs on a film which had no business being made - this provides a lot of insight. The end result doesn't work but it's also still worth watching.
Danny Elfman's contribution is probably the only one that came out unscathed.
In a day and age now where companies like Disney are remaking their own work, the Psycho remake doesn't look so bad. I always enjoyed it for what it was.
I actually just watched it recently and was fairly intrigued by it. Of course it's not a must see masterpiece of Cinema but it is a unique one of a kind film experiment. Maybe it's only appealing to cinephiles or other filmmakers, but the stagey choreographed rhythm it has kind of lends to it's charm. I think the immediate dissmisal & predictably dull criticism of "it sucks" or "unnecessary, why?" is just something popular to say. I wonder how many people who say this actually watched Gus Van Sant's film or approached it with an unbiased & interested mind.
While Disney is just cashing on their childhood favorites, this one at least feels more like something meant to fulfill a genuine curiosity, like to answer what would a classic movie look like if it was filmed today. I can't think of too many people who watched the original Psycho over and over when they were kids.
This provides a lot of insight over exactly why this movie misses the mark so extravagantly. Even in these interviews, it looks like nobody had any clear direction as to what they were supposed to be doing, or even what the vision was in the first place. And the people who seemed to have a direction were visibly dissatisfied with it.
20:31 is such a good example.
Absolutely. It’s odd hearing Julianne Moore and Anne Heche be so dismissive of the original and their respective characters. Lila in the original is a driven and very resourceful character who you understand every step of the way.
I noticed that too. Usually in these making-of interviews you hear the directors and the actors being respectful when they are talking about a source material, but lots of these guys talk about Hitchcock like some indie director that made this average movie "Psycho" and they came here to improve it. It's like a bunch of 18 years old trying to make their first big movie.
For you maybe. I enjoyed it.
I like what the remake does right, it's an interesting attempt at a living photocopy
That it is but I also can see it as how can Vince compare to Anthony and how can Anne compare to Janet Leigh... They're islands apart
@@AndrewDub1it’s just proof that even if you 100% try to replicate it, you can’t
I don’t like the remake of Psycho but it was interesting seeing a shot for shot remake of something
To be honest, watching this documentary is way more fun than watching the real 1998 film...
I agree.
I enjoyed this mini-documentary. It made me want to see the 1998 version now. I wished Anne Heche had had a greater career. I think she was a good actress.
The remake isn't as bad as it's supposed to be, but time had marched on since 1960. Marion and Sam WOULDN'T have been meeting in cheap hotel rooms in 1998...by then no one cared what two mature adults did in or out of marriage.
I wasn't really much for the remake but they honestly could remake psycho again because the book is actually way different than the movie. If you read the book psycho it's actually really more of a violent book than it was a movie. With the character Marion getting beheaded in the shower so I think if they would remake it but make it more true to the book it would be a good remake.
Always thought this too
After seeing this Making Of, I started to appreciate this film more than usual.
Then your nuts. Its crap.
…
I don’t know why they try to recycle movies. The original Psycho was the best. I don’t think anything could ever top it.
I'd rather watched the colorization version of the original Psycho than the remake if they done that.
where can i find the colorized version of the original pyscho?
Oh my God, that has got to be one of the most cinematically blasphemous comments ever dared typed. The original "Psycho" colourized? And twenty-two other fools that actually "LIKED" the comment? God help us all. It's not like it's "Miracle on 34th Street" or an old "I Love Lucy" episode. Mainstream Hollywood was already more than 25 years into making colour films by the time Hitchcock made this masterpiece - he CHOSE to film it in black and white.
@@giggles7179 It was only a figure of speech. Don't take it seriously.
The black and white photography of Hitchcock's original serves to increase the suspense. Colorization would ruin the film for me.
Wow they really wanted to MAKE SURE their scenes were identical to the original. Lol. That’s so weird. I’ve never seen filmmakers act so unimaginative...
But they did it for a reason. What is the reason?
that was the point of the project
@@MegaKamandi What was? Are you saying the point of the project was to make an unoriginal film? or a lazy, unoriginal film? If so, then that doesn't sound the sort of project that a director of any talent and ability would ever entertain.
It was a great remake .
No it wasn’t!
After Good Will Hunting, Van Sant had carte blanche to do whatever film we wanted, and he chose this. Legend.
I'ts difficult to get young audiences to watch old classics like Maltese Falcon, Sunset Blvd, Casablanca or even Chinatown so remaking old classics in a modern format with hi-def audio and cameras, modern actors and crews and remaining faithful to the spirit of the original is worthwhile to keep the craft of film making alive.
Agree! Also just like music, can widen new generations of audiences to react and engage with original.
If someone wants to do something then they should do it and not worry about what people say about it. 23 year have passed since this remake. There'll probably be someone who wants to remake the remake but do it in black and white.
I'm listening to this score and I can't stop thinking "Re-Animator...😂"
I know Psycho came first.
RIP Anne Heche
I just seen the 1998 remake for the first time last week and I liked it. I know most people said it sucked, but to me it wasnt that bad. I didnt care much for vince vaughn as norman bates though. He came off kinda goofy and he wasnt scary whatsoever. The secretary's acting is pretty bad too. Its nowhere near as good as the original but I'm glad they made this remake. I'll watch it again when I'm doing my psycho movie marathons. I'm glad I bought this on dvd.
i concur.
Why change the house? And Vince Vaughn made Norman Bates look like a creepy sexual predator specially with the masturbation scene.
The Bates Mansion in the remake was not from Mississippi, the Plantation House was in the deep swamps of southeast Louisiana loacted in Braithwaite. It was called The Orange Grove Plantation.. Built in 1850 by a man named Thomas Ashton Morgan. the house burned down in 1982. the people of Louisiana may have torn the old house down
I have every respect for the actors who all gave good performances, however, for all the attempts, by Gus Van Sant, to dress this remake up as valid “artistic” endeavour in this documentary, history has shown that it was as much of a failure as all the sceptics predicted it would be. The, fatuous, argument that contemporary cinema audiences don’t know the original just highlight that the original could be successfully revived. 26 years after this remake reaction videos online demonstrate just how powerful Hitchcock’s 64 year old film remains. The 1983 and 86 Anthony Perkins sequels, Psycho II & Psycho III, are certainly not as good as the original but at least tried to add some intrigue and development of Norman’s story, the 1998 remake only takes away from the original and adds nothing.
1:22-1:28. Boy, that aged real well
The late Anne Heche resembled Sandy Duncan.
Everybody hates on it but I dont think it was that bad. I think it did the original justice.
Only in the sense that it makes one love the original film so much more. Even screenwriter Joseph Stefano admitted he was disappointed that they merely used his exact same script from 1960, even though he was all for writing a more exciting remake.
…
Moore Heche soap opera alumni another world as the 🌎 turns
Самая страшная сцена в душе спасибо за фильм ...
The original better than the remake
0:23 so she was the one who did that scream for the actor at the end
1:24 TELL ME ABOUT IT 🤷🏾♂️🤣🤦🏾♂️🚫🎬
I definitely do not want to recreate that shower scene from that horror movie.
Жалко актрису вчера узнала что нету вечный покой😢ремейк самый лучший.
Why wouldn’t they use the original set when it still stands on the Universal lot?
Интересно посмотреть как снимали ток бы ещё с переводом..
Remaking a legendary classic film like this was a totally ridiculous idea. Don't remake perfection. I did enjoy watching it when it came out but I would never say this was better than the original.
Should have used original house and motel, like in Bates Motel.
The original is the best one they ever did.
Винс Вон лапочка 💕💕💕💕
Laziest remake ever, just a shot for shot redo of the original with random sex images thrown in during the death scenes.
it's lazy to put it down to laziness. the question you should be asking is WHY did vant sant make it a shot for shot remake?
The Psycho remake, to me, is one of the most poorly cast movies in history. Van Sant missed the mark on every single role.
Обожаю Нормана.
Весело снимали хотелось бы увидеть всё и на русском фильм👍
Horrible remake acting box office bomb geez 👎
Rude to you too
3:17
Maybe some body wanted to make it in color.
I don't know why people were so freaked out by this concept. The studio owned a property and wanted to continue to make money off it... as they are wont to do. The remake didn't lose money, and gave a lot of people work - so, fine. It was an experiment. They weren't saying every film should be made this way.
No, it completely bombed. 60 million for a budget. 37 million at the box office
nurse gus.
Why is psycho path
It's a bad pun - the "path" to the film Psycho, which is about a psychoPATH
Hitchcock would of been at least flattered.
but mob mentality is always both silly and present. Just one trip through any of the "review" sites like IMDB, RT, LetterB ect,ect. and you'll see it on full display, 500 reviews saying the same 1-2 lines with a 1/5 or 1/10 score. NO real cinephile, movie buff, film collector pays any "Serious" attention to such things. I have the bluray of this to go with the others of the series. Sure it's a shot by shot with a little tech updates and Viggo Mortensen's butt (nice addition) I wouldn't have mind seeing John Gavin's in the same scene in the original if I do say so myself, would have been quite nice personally and considering how controversial it was gonna be I don't know why they didn't go ahead and throw that in too...LMAO. Do I like this version? Well, it's ok, no big deal, can't say I hate it as doing so would be kind of silly since it's near a shot for shot of the OG..lol Just get over it, let the mob run themselves ragged and make up your own mind in peace. It's a decent film as a stand alone and everyone's wallet is their own. It's my money and I bought it for me and my collection, not yours. And no one rolled in their graves over it...lmao
Gus Van Sant really blew his chance at being a big director.
He could have done a Bond film or something epic if he wanted after Good Will Hunting.
Such a stupid move on his part.
He doesn't strike me as the sort of director that would want to do a typical blockbuster project with all the studio constraints that it would entail
Agreed but not the part about doing a bond movie
@@lopedeaguirre1 yes not everyone wants to be “big” they just want to make the films they want to make, the way they want to. Also nice profile pic 👍🏼
How did he blow his chance? He directed Milk a whole decade after Good Will Hunting and that movie was a massive success and received several Oscar nominations. He chose to walk away from the studio system because he wanted to make smaller, independent films. Just because he's not some hack director crapping out predictable action garbage every year doesn't mean he's not a successful filmmaker.
@@silversnail1413 The utter flop and failure of this crap confirms that.
This movie bombed and it deserved to bomb. A photocopy is not a work of art.
The Muppets Baby Kill Count
Anne Heche did great as Marion when she was killed off the rest of the movie was dry.
Gee, couldn't they have found an even worse actor than Vince Vaughn? I tried to give the remake a shot, but Vince was just horrible at the role! Pee Wee Herman would have been a better fit for the part of Norman.
Julianne Moore is a million times worse. I cannot stand her lifeless Botox face! There is not a single live action role she plays convincingly, because she has no physical emotion!
A worse actor you say? How about Tommy Wiseau?
It should have been Rob Lowe
I thought the original Sam was kinda boring but Mortensen made him a cocky moron and just unlikeable. His girlfriend was missing while running from the police with millions of dollars, Marion's sister was worried sick and he thought it a good idea to give her a filtry kiss on the cheek?
I got it... let's do a remake of the remake. This time the film opens up with a shot of downtown Phoenix during a dust storm and Marion Crane is not murdered at a motel but instead dies from heat exhaustion when her car's air conditioner mysteriously stops working.
It really is horrible.
Rude
Why bother trying to recreate a masterpiece, you're always going to be on a hiding to nothing.
Vince Vaughan going head to head with Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates....give me a break
What's funny is that they're doing practically the same movie, but it's utterly disastrous.
Pus Van Zant is at the bottom of filmmakers, and this is the worst excuse. Doris WIshman, Ray Dennis Steckler - they have more creativity that Pus offers.
Anne Heche going "I've never even seen 'Psycho', I just wanted to work with Gus..." I don't believe her for a minute. If that is actually true then she has no business being an actress if she is ignorant to one of the best films ever made. Her dismissal at the films existence and significance is disrespectful to say the least so it was fitting that this pitiful remake she contributed too, was the colossal failure, critical disaster and financial flop it was.... Oh, how we laughed when those scathing, vitriolic reviews poured in, especially those that highlighted her totally bland and featureless performance.... I'm sure she consoled herself and hid from the criticism by hiding inbetween the fish odoured flaps of Ellen DeGeneres or whatever grotesque lesbo she was licking out at the time.
She grew up poor in a highly religious family. She only ever saw one movie growing up, Star Wars. She didn't even know what a "soap" was when she auditioned for Another World. So yeah, hate the remake, but don't make assumptions about a person's life experience. It's that kind of BS that's wrong with the world these days. She won an Emmy before she even got to Hollywood and also was later nominated for two Tony Awards. An actor now having seen a film or knowing a particular play doesn't make them having no business being an actor. Patrick Stewart had never seen Star Trek, doesn't mean he had no business being an actor or being on that show.
@@SB0780 Are you sure??!!! Her childhood is irrelevant. I'm assuming she didn't live with her parents as an adult and when she made this travesty of a film so that excuse holds no water at all. She could have seen it. Meg Tilly had exactly the same upbringing yet she sought out and watched 'Psycho' before she started work on 'Psycho II' so yes, I will make assumptions about the actress. Especially when she dismisses the original. Any actress worth her salt would never be as flippant over a classic film she has never seen.
Stupid move -- and the box office bomb it became proved it. They lost over 30 million on it. If you're going to do a remake, say something new.
Awful remake. Please, watch the Hitchcock movies better.
A totally unnecessary remake!! They made Hitchcock's masterpiece a laughing stock!! Thumbs down to the creators of this disaster!!
Gus has balls to do this I loved it I personally think Hitchcock version is overratted I think North by Northwest or the birds are btter films
I wouldn't call making a film that everyone already knows is doomed to fail, or setting yourself up to be ridiculed and laughed at globally, having balls.
I'd call that deliberate career suicide or simply being thick as shit.
…
bullcrap,its great, the original psycho is not amazing,its interesting..but there are better movies from then that i wouldnt bother first
Not alone is it badly acted, it's utterly pointless. Who needs a line-by-line remake of a masterpiece made by idiots?
I really enjoyed the remake of Psycho and still enjoy the original. But I think, more than anything, this utterly stupid documentary is just pointless and has no direction.
Maybe the 1998 actors broke and director want to help with money. Remake totally waste of time.
23:45