i remember laughing at "let me get my walkman"- after Julianne Moore made the character of Lila a bit of a tool I thought somehow that stupid line fit.
my grandmother went to see Psycho in 1960, she fainted at the dectective murder scene and she woke up in the managers office and she was offered to go back in and her reply was "Am i Fuck" 🤣🤣 she is 71 now and has watched the tv series Bates Motel, she really likes it but she says it will never top the original.. also i bought the Norman Bates funko pops once they arrive im going to make a video with my grandmother 😊
Vince Vaughn who I find enormously irritating and having the screen presence of a wet cardboard box, is actually closer to the Robert Bloch,s depiction of Norman Bates, plain looking middle aged man with little to no distinguishing features. Hitchcock chose Anthony Perkins because he looked vulnerable and harmless. A great choice in my opinion. As for audience members being tipped off, I doubt this would ever happen, at the time of the films release Janet Leigh was a big star, big stars in films never ever at that time would be killed off, the very thought at that time would have been ludicrousness, that,s what made it so amazing, a leading lady being killed off half way though a film the audience loosing their character, who should they follow now?
Vaughn was 27-28 when this was made. Not middle-aged. He'd also just played a young stud in "Swingers." He was generally considered handsome at the time. Bloch's character was over 40 and overweight. Agreed about the Leigh casting.
The genius thing about that trailer, is that it's Vera Miles in the shower, and not Janet Leigh. Was another way that he diverted suspicion of Janet Leigh's demise in the film.
Actually, he's right. Janet Leigh wasn't around the set for the trailer. Go to the five minute thirty-six second mark of the linked video, and it's pretty clear that it's not Janet Leigh in the shower. www.openculture.com/2012/11/hitchcock_tantalizes_audiences_with_playful_trailer_for_psycho.html
I knew he did that, but wasn't aware that it was for that particular reason, just that Janet Leigh wasn't available for the trailer. However, it makes perfect sense, and is just the kind of misdirection you'd expect from Hitch.
I was always a huge Psycho fan (all four movies). But the series was disappointing for me. Not on an objective level, mind you. Just on a personal level. For me, the appeal of the Bates Motel in the films was that it was the pocket of crazy in an otherwise ordinary all-American town. Nobody would suspect there was a knife-wielding maniac living among them. Whereas the TV show made the ENTIRE TOWN crazy. So it was like, "Of course there's a psycho living at that motel. Why wouldn't there be? Have you SEEN this town?!" I found the over-abundance of sub-plots distracting and ultimately irritating.
Joseph Adam I always thought I was the only one hugely disappointed with the show. First, for the reason you already mentioned. What made me drop it was the one episode in S1 I think, where Norman’s brother witnesses him being dressed up as Norma and acts like her. That was the moment where I knew the directors really didn’t care about the established psychology of the characters but only used their names. In the original, Norman’s personality splits because he can’t get over the fact that he killed his mother. He digs up her corpse, preserves her body, because that’s not enough he starts dressing up like her and has full on conversations with his split personality. Why is the Norman in the show already doing that, if he didn’t kill his mother yet?
Having just re-watched the original recently, I actually think Vera Mills doesn't get enough credit, nor does her character of Lila. She's actually very progressive for the time period: 1) She doesn't fall into any forced, contrived romance with any of the male characters. 2) She isn't glamorized or sexualized in any way. 3) Since she essentially becomes the new protagonist to replace Marion, she's a very active protagonist with a very "get it done yesterday" attitude about investigating her sister's disappearance.
The reason why people were not allowed to be admitted into the theater after it had already started or was asked to not speak of the spoilers was bc Janet Leigh was a big actress during that time, so if people came in late and missed her death they would have been asking "where is Janet Leigh"? and for that time killing off a big name star was a huge risk or move
Oh! I don't believe so. To my mind it was a marketing ploy which, in fact, makes complete sense because it is a movie, like so many, has to be seen from the beginning to make sense of the plot.
Hitchcock's Psycho is a masterpiece. That anyone dared to think they could remake it is such an insult... and the epitome of hubris! It's like copying a Van Gogh. It has no value whatsoever.
You REALLY didn't know about the PR gimmick? Up to that time, movies usually included double features, a newsreel, previews, cartoons, etc. (Today, it's commercials and too-long previews that reveal all the spoilers that might've attracted future audiences.) Back then, we entered the theater whenever we liked, often as not in the middle of whatever film was playing. Screenwriters knew this and usually slipped little plot summaries into later scenes so audiences could catch up. (We were also allowed to sit through the whole program again, if we wanted to see the opening material we'd missed--and could even sit there through as much as we wanted as often as we wanted, even till closing.) But A H knew latecomers would be confused and annoyed if they arrived after the shower scene and kept waiting for the star of the picture to show up. So he insisted that no one would be admitted after the credits started. A major consequence: thereafter, theaters more often showed only one movie without all the extras, and emptied the theater immediately after each screening. If one came in late, the only way to see the scenes missed was to buy another full-priced ticket for the next show.
The original Hitchcock scene where Martin Balsam scoots along the front seat of his car was the norm (not Norman) back then as many movies and tv shows has actors doing that. The Andy Griffith Show showed this constantly
If you watch a lot of classic movies, you’ll notice drivers often exit vehicles from the passenger side. I think it was just common practice back then.
In my opinion, the worst “crime” that a movie can commit is not being able to justify its own existence. Psycho has aged well and it’s still just as good today as it was in 1960. If you aren’t going to bring anything new and fresh, why would you ever remake it? The remake had no reason to even be made other than money, perhaps. It’s really sad.
thanks for your witty and enlightening comparision of the two films, you helped me a lot. i have to prepare a presentation on the same topic for university and stumbled upon this. keep up the good work.
The highway cop actor wanted to do it exactly as the original which was nice to hear since everyone killed the characters except William H. Macy who did an awesome job.
In 1960 when this was first screened in the UK I was 9. I remember the night my parents came home from the cinema. They were white and my Mum almost fell down the stairs as she was so scared to go to the bathroom. This film became a ghost for me until I was old enough to see it myself. It is the quintessential horror film because it is so contextual and deep. Nobody today can do Psycho, no matter how hard they try.
I feel like the remake would have possibly been better if Anne and Vince didn't play Norman and Marion. Neither suit the role honestly. If they could have found a better actor that resembled Anthony Perkins more and an actress with a more classic look, it would have improved it a little at least
"Good evening. Have you ever had a premonition...? A feeling that something dreadful was about to happen...?" Hmm... That intro can be useful for the Final Destination films!
It's interesting that Gus Van Sant first told Danny Elfman about what he was attempting and that Elfman replied to him that he would be killed". Danny Elfman ended up doing the score for the movie "Hitchcock" about the events of making "Psycho".
@Dessert Storm: I can't even remember if people were still using cassette Walkmans in 1998. Although I'll note that the CD Discmans of any brand didn't seem to work as well on the go, a little too much movement would cause it to skip, whereas you could run and jog and jolt around a cassette Walkman quite a lot more, no problem hehehehehe
The scenes where Arboghast gets out of the car through the passenger side...Just a thought but Hitchcock was British and would have been used to driving in a car with the steering wheel on the other side. But your explanation makes a lot more sense.
I actually enjoyed the remake overall. I prefer the Marion sequence from the original, the Arbogast section is a draw, and I actually prefer the Sam and Lila sequence in the remake. The hardest thing the remake has going for it is that it can't be seen on it's own terms by anyone who knows the original film. One more thing. Have you ever watched the remake with the color turned all the way down? It's instantly better.
I suppose on paper Psycho 1998 is kind of/sort of the same film, but in execution it's not. Really, the only thing that's the same here is a woman named Marion Crane impulsively steals some money and tries to get away to California to give it to her boyfriend Sam Loomis but a rain storm leads her to the Bates Motel, or in Psycho 1998's case just the "Motel," and then she gets knifed in the shower. Eventually, Sam Loomis and Lila Crane discover what happened to Marion, and Norman Bates gets committed into an insane asylum.
I would say in execution it's very similar. Almost every scene is reproduced, and many involve shot-for-shot reproductions. The quality and tone of that execution is just very different. And ultimately, that makes all the differences.
Agree with all you said. And not to be mean, but what the hell is wrong with Van Zandt!? Okay, riddle me this . . . ya got a film, made by one of the greatest film makers in history, considered “The Master of Suspense”, carrying decades of film experience, a film maker who made one the greatest suspense thrillers in history, maybe even THE greatest suspense thriller in history. Along comes a guy who has not made the likes of Vertigo, North by Northwest, or Rear Window to demonstrate his prowess in celluloid (or the digital equivalent), and he says, Oh yeah, I can re-do what that guy did. Brother Gus must have one hell of an artistic ego. I watched both at the same time, one on top of the other. I would play a few moments of Van Sant, then a few moments of Hitchcock, then Van Sant, then Hitchcock, and so on. So I too, knew it was merely a (mostly) scene for scene, but not a shot for shot remake. Yes, there are certain movies that should never be re-made, Casa Blanca, Shane, The Godfather I & II (not III), Raging Bull. Then there are those that should never be re-made unless your going to do it in an entirely different way, like when Ricky Nelson re-did the 1940’s Frank Sinatra song, Fools Rush In. Sinatra’s was a soft, slow ballad, Nelson’s was a quick shuffling rock and roll. Film-wise, I’m thinking of Out of the Past with Kirk Douglass and it’s loose remake of Lawrence Kasdan’s absolutely brilliant Body Heat. Not that Out of the Past was great, but you get my meaning in changing it up quite a bit, re-arranging the whole orchestration. Van Sant was not only bold enough to remake the thing he was so arrogant as to do a (again, mostly) scene for scene version. In my opinion, he should have berated himself for his way overblown ego the minute the idea came into his head! If he had, he wouldn’t have - and I hate to say it as I am not usually a cruel man - never have made a fool of himself. Sorry.
Nobody debates the original as the superior or more meaningful and impactful work...but people are SO QUICK to just write off the remake entirely with no further discussion...that it makes me want to hear and say more about it. The differences are so small that every difference is worth discussing. The adjustments and everything that comes with them warrant discussion. It makes me want to give the remake a bit more credit and time of day BECAUSE people just throw it off outright.
i wanted the remake to be a success but after seeing it i thought it was a prime example of why you shouldn't remake a film that had originally made such an impact. also more proof that Psycho works in black and white, not Gus Van Sant's tacky use of color. sorry, thought it was dreadful.
I've been a passionate fan of "Psycho" since childhood (yes, I was indoctrinated to horror very early) and I have to say that while most of your commentary here is absolutely on point, I've actually come to appreciate Van Sant's remake because I choose to watch it from another angle; its true value is the fact that it is the most expensive experimental film ever made. Film schools around the world have long included an examination of Hitchcock's shower scene in their curriculum and only within the last ten years or so, many of them now study Van Sant's too. I have to admit I was really surprised that for all the criticisms you offer in this video, you didn't once mention the facade Van Sant had erected to mask the original iconic house on the hill. That was the closest his film came to true cinematic blasphemy. The one reason I really lament Van Sant's attempt is the fact that it had such a strong backlash that there will likely be no other attempts to adapt the narrative. Not anytime soon. Hitchcock's will never be replaced and this film is the one that pops instantly to mind when pondering the worst remake ever. Yes, I'm also a fan of A&E's loosely adapted prequel series "Bates Motel," but I do have to wonder how another take on the original would have panned out with another "visionary" director (as Van Sant was considered by many before 1998) at its helm. That's not happening anytime soon.
I'm more into Vertigo but Psycho was still fun to watch. I'm half tempted to watch the remake but I should probably get wasted first....bad week to stop sniffing glue....
I hated the remake so much to be honest. I didn't even get all the way through it. The original, when I rewatched it as an adult, still had me on the edge of my seat the entire time even though I KNEW the story. The subtlety, the well timed misdirection, the reveal, the pacing, it's all perfect in the original, this one somehow manages to use the same story, nearly the same script, almost all the same scenes, and it somehow manages to bungle every single subtlety so completely that it's just another boring slasher film.
The original is like a familiar roller coaster ride that still gets to you on certain twists and turns. Plus it's just a beautiful piece of cinema and a pleasure to observe as a window to the time period and all the beautiful details.
I think you will see Humphrey Bogart exit cars the same way. I don't think it was primarily for safety, but simple economy of effort. The cars of 1960 (and earlier) being so large, "scooting over" the bench seat would get you about a ten yard start to where you were going versus walking all the way around the front or back of the vehicle from the driver's side.
Curtis Fletcher I feel they added that in the remake as a nod to how norman was in the book as he was a more sexual active character apparently idk I've never red the book
Great analysis! Thanks for sharing it with us. I thought the remake was just downright awful. Updating the movie to be in 1998, while STILL using the 1960 script was just odd, antiquated and made the characters, motivations, and scenes just seem STUPID. Take the opening scene for example where Marion is with Sam in the motel. She was with him for three hours, suposively on a lunch break. They discuss his ex wife, and their affair. Come on! In 1998 there is nothing scandalous about a woman dating a divorced man, so why the shame? Why the motel? Marion would have her own place in 1998. Also, why the intense desire for Marion to be married at all? In 1960, yes. I could see that for a woman. But in 1998, Marion wouldn't need that. She was a working woman, independent, and could simply date whoever she wished without marriage. Also, in 1960 it might have been acceptable for her to take an extended lunch (and go home sick after returning), but in 1998 it screams IRRESPONSIBLE and would end up in her being fired. A lunch hour was a thing of the past. And that's just the opening scene. Vince Vaugh will never be half the actor Anthony Perkins was.
There are hundreds of films that have been remade or riffed on based on either on the original book, or play, or movie. Sometimes they succeed on certain levels, and that's good. But, there are some movies that stand so tall in the pantheon of greatness that no remake can equal it. Psycho is one. We have all been desensitized by horror/slasher movies and the shock of the shower scene does not have the same effect as it did on moviegoers when the original was released.
Fun Fact: Tobey Maguire, Christian Bale, Robert Sean Leonard, Jeremy Davies, Henry Thomas, and Joaquin Phoenix we’re considered to play Norman Bates in this version
In the original dining motel scene, during the conversation, Janet Leigh slowly starts to realise that Norman is not 100% SANE - though she has no inkling how crazy and dangerous he truly is - and regards him with a patronising pity. There is a sense that "there but for the grace of God could go I" and it motiivates her to return to Phoenix and hand back the loot. In the remake, Anne Heche looks entirely creeped and unnerved by Vince you's expect her to exit screaming. Also, Janet looks a little more sturdier physically against the thin Perkins whereas Heche seems dwarfed by the burlier Vaughan.
The remake should never have been, but at least Van Sant could have made it a little better with good casting, starting with Vince Vaughn, who didn't have the innocence that Anthony Perkins brings to the role of Norman Bates. A far better choice would have been someone like Andrew Garfield.
Julianne Moore is a great actress, but kind of looks like she is sleepwalking through this, and Vince Vaughn can't bring the subtly creepiness that Perkins brought to the role of Norman Bates.
Original Psycho is a masterpiece, I'm going to watch the remake as there would be no point, this video does well to explain that. Macy getting out of passenger car door was beyond stupid.
One could see Janet Leigh being swept away by love and stealing the money. But Anne Heche, a better technical actress, came across as too calculating to go crazy. The major casting problem of many with the remake.
I believe that Willem Dafoe could have made a better Norman Bates in this remake, I mean Willem Dafoe did amazing as Green Goblin in Spider-Man, so he would make a terrifying Norman Bates.
I recently reviewed this on a blog I do and, after watching it again, I realized that you were right about it not exactly being a shot-for-shot remake. I would say it's a scene-for-scene remake but not shot-for-shot. Regardless, it's terrible, and was a dumb idea from the get-go. Did Gus Van Sant really need to do this whole experiment to get the answer to his question, one that should have been pretty freaking obvious?
Exactly. The concept of it makes absolutely no sense. In my opinion the only reason to do a remake is to improve upon the original in someway or add something new or different to the story. Copying the same film scene-for-scene and line-for-line does neither of those. What's the point? This is a rare instance where the movie fails at the conception stage.
The point is to make it more relevant/accessible for modern audiences, so they can be exposed to it. Many people under 40 have never seen it. That said, they could've updated it in other ways as well. This was like putting makeup on a corpse.
@Haphazardstuff - You sound to me like one of those types of people who go through life finding fault with everything and everyone! Oh, btw, I can't say that I'm familiar with any cinematic releases which you yourself have directed?
Vince Vaugn was way to jock-looking compared to the awkwardness of Anothy Perkins. And that hat that William H. Macy wore looks like something from a cheap Halloween 40s gangster costume! I think the only redeeming thing about the 98 film was Julianne Moore, who gave a freshness to the Lila Crane role. All in all movies should never be remade/rebooted!
It’s s 95% shot for shot remake. The remake is a nice film to analyze. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates was the worst thing that happened. Also changing the house.
I kinda want a colourised 1960 Psycho. I don't know why, but I really want it now that I've heard it mentioned. I don't care; I want an excuse to watch it.
For others the character of Sam Loomis is the weak link, but for me he’s almost my favourite character, just because of Donald Pleasance’s performance of the same name in Halloween
But the only question is, what if you take a bad movie, and do a shot for shot remake of it, but still make changes to the bad parts the original got wrong.
On the whole I despise remakes. Hitch was the original diamond cutter and the foremost gem setter of this genre. To remake one of his films is like having an art student from a local high school re-paint the Mona Lisa and then someone actually having the temerity and audacity to hang it in the Louvre next to the real deal for comparison. Or some computer whiz with Pro Tools thinking he can remake McCartney's song 'Michelle' and having peeps of this generation hear it on UA-cam and the play stats blow the thing up like it's even in the running. The most sincere type of flattery is imitation and while the 1998 remake of Pyscho is an admirable attempt, it is in many ways a contemptable imitation made not 40 years after the original, made for people whose world view was 180 degrees away from that of those who viewed the original in the world in which it was created. Fifty years from now the original Psycho will still be talked about and revered long after it's imitations have been mostly forgotten. Again, the 1998 remake is an admirable attempt no actor in the history of film making has ever possessed the manifest intensity and at the same time the naïve vulnerability as Anthony Perkins. He WAS and IS Norman Bates!
Even though the remake was terrible, Danny Elfman did do a good job on the soundtrack (even though it is literally the exact same soundtrack as the original).
Yes lots of them had a record function in those days ,although not many of the actual sony walkmans (Trademark) , but thing is also most of the other brands were referred to as said "walkman" to as they all were mostly the same machine with the same function , ironically mostly the other brands were much better & innovative than the sony machines ever were , think of the walkman as the 80s & 90s Iphone , not the best by far but a fashion accessory for those who have no self esteem but to flash their expensive shit in people's faces
The remake sucks big time I rather the original. Vince Vaughn cannot hold candles to Tony Perkins he will always be Norman Bates! Anne Hecht, William H. Macy, Viggo Mortensen, and Julian Moore as Mariane Crane, Detective Arbogast, Sam Loomis, and Lila Crane cannot come even close to Janet Leigh, Martin Balsam, John Gavin, and Vera Miles!
Thats one of the lamest excuses to remake a movie. When my friends found out I'd seen it they kept asking what i thought and if they would be allowed to watch it. You said it best, it's only good to prove the ridiculousness of remaking a film "shot for shot"
I would argue 90% of it being shot for shot is essentially the same as 100. Not calling it a shot for shot seems less accurate than just rounding up. This was a good video and yes, I'd agree it's a fascinating film to watch (but still sucks) because it took a completely insane approach.
In the 1950s people would stroll into movies off the street at any time, especially for Western and Sci-Fi flicks, just to see the action and kill a couple hours. They'd watch the second half, then the first half, then leave. In real life people used a phrase, "This is where I came in" to exit some situation that was repeating itself (couples arguing, etc). Hitch insisted on closing the doors so people wouldn't walk in, wonder where Janet Leigh was, and feel gypped.
I saw this film/ and forgot it: if I were a studio head, I would have advised this guy to save his time & money because NOBODY can duplicate HITCHCOCK ...Just saying ...
I know of one shot for shot remake that not only everyone should see, it should be hailed as a remarkable achievement by any standard of measure.. It's called Raiders of the Lost Ark. An Adaptation. Here's a link to watch it. archive.org/details/RaidersOfTheLostArkTheAdaptationVhsripXvid Here's a link to the documentary about the kids and their story. As well as their quest to get enough money to finally do the airplane sequence that as kids, they were not able to do, obviously. Raiders! The Story of the Greatest Fan Film Ever Made putlockers.am/watch/zGW32rGP-raiders-the-story-of-the-greatest-fan-film-ever- You can also watch it on Amazon or Netflix. Paramount pictures is planning to do a bio-pic about the kids that made the film. They sure deserve it.
Trailers gave too much info- as to not getting in midway or after the start- back in the "day" people always showed up late for movies- so they would miss the shower scene and not get it. (”)/
Why did they remake the movie? I suppose because they wanted to and they did. It's not the first time and it won't be the last time. These things seem to happen...all the time...
The original is clearly unmatched. Hitchcock's genius can't be copied as you never can copy a genius.
Original Psycho is the best.
I really like it.
Janet Leigh & Anthony
Perkins did a great job.
Best of the Best. Phycho the first one.
I agree that calling it a shot-for-shot remake is not fitting. I always call it a scene-for-scene remake.
Thank you!
Why would she need a walkman at any point in that journey lol. thanks for pointing these things out!
I think, personally, it makes the viewer perceive her as being circa 10 years younger.
i remember laughing at "let me get my walkman"- after Julianne Moore made the character of Lila a bit of a tool I thought somehow that stupid line fit.
That remark about Vaughn's forehead, too savage lol.
my grandmother went to see Psycho in 1960, she fainted at the dectective murder scene and she woke up in the managers office and she was offered to go back in and her reply was "Am i Fuck" 🤣🤣 she is 71 now and has watched the tv series Bates Motel, she really likes it but she says it will never top the original.. also i bought the Norman Bates funko pops once they arrive im going to make a video with my grandmother 😊
That Scene Gave Me A Heart Attack Fr 😅
@Lance Jason Domosmog Pableo she sadly passed away last year but thank you i appreciate that! ❤
1998: Let me grab my walkman
2019: Let me grab my iPhone
That line made me physically cringe.
Have you never heard of an inside-joke before?
Vince Vaughn who I find enormously irritating and having the screen presence of a wet cardboard box, is actually closer to the Robert Bloch,s depiction of Norman Bates, plain looking middle aged man with little to no distinguishing features. Hitchcock chose Anthony Perkins because he looked vulnerable and harmless. A great choice in my opinion. As for audience members being tipped off, I doubt this would ever happen, at the time of the films release Janet Leigh was a big star, big stars in films never ever at that time would be killed off, the very thought at that time would have been ludicrousness, that,s what made it so amazing, a leading lady being killed off half way though a film the audience loosing their character, who should they follow now?
Vaughn was 27-28 when this was made. Not middle-aged. He'd also just played a young stud in "Swingers." He was generally considered handsome at the time.
Bloch's character was over 40 and overweight.
Agreed about the Leigh casting.
The genius thing about that trailer, is that it's Vera Miles in the shower, and not Janet Leigh. Was another way that he diverted suspicion of Janet Leigh's demise in the film.
Actually, he's right. Janet Leigh wasn't around the set for the trailer. Go to the five minute thirty-six second mark of the linked video, and it's pretty clear that it's not Janet Leigh in the shower. www.openculture.com/2012/11/hitchcock_tantalizes_audiences_with_playful_trailer_for_psycho.html
I knew he did that, but wasn't aware that it was for that particular reason, just that Janet Leigh wasn't available for the trailer. However, it makes perfect sense, and is just the kind of misdirection you'd expect from Hitch.
No, actually they wanted to get Janet for the trailer but she wasn't available so they used Vera Miles.
It was 23 years between the release of Psycho and Psycho 2. Next year, maybe Vince Vaughn should do a shot for shot remake of Psycho 2, lol.
Bates Motel (netflix) brought me here, it's such a good show.
Very entertaining. I adore Norma.
im watching bates motel the tv show as well on netflix
I was always a huge Psycho fan (all four movies). But the series was disappointing for me. Not on an objective level, mind you. Just on a personal level. For me, the appeal of the Bates Motel in the films was that it was the pocket of crazy in an otherwise ordinary all-American town. Nobody would suspect there was a knife-wielding maniac living among them. Whereas the TV show made the ENTIRE TOWN crazy. So it was like, "Of course there's a psycho living at that motel. Why wouldn't there be? Have you SEEN this town?!" I found the over-abundance of sub-plots distracting and ultimately irritating.
bates motel on A&E damm it! you dammm lazy neanderthal millennium
Joseph Adam I always thought I was the only one hugely disappointed with the show. First, for the reason you already mentioned. What made me drop it was the one episode in S1 I think, where Norman’s brother witnesses him being dressed up as Norma and acts like her. That was the moment where I knew the directors really didn’t care about the established psychology of the characters but only used their names. In the original, Norman’s personality splits because he can’t get over the fact that he killed his mother. He digs up her corpse, preserves her body, because that’s not enough he starts dressing up like her and has full on conversations with his split personality. Why is the Norman in the show already doing that, if he didn’t kill his mother yet?
Having just re-watched the original recently, I actually think Vera Mills doesn't get enough credit, nor does her character of Lila. She's actually very progressive for the time period:
1) She doesn't fall into any forced, contrived romance with any of the male characters.
2) She isn't glamorized or sexualized in any way.
3) Since she essentially becomes the new protagonist to replace Marion, she's a very active protagonist with a very "get it done yesterday" attitude about investigating her sister's disappearance.
Yeah she is the reason Norman is caught..
The reason why people were not allowed to be admitted into the theater after it had already started or was asked to not speak of the spoilers was bc Janet Leigh was a big actress during that time, so if people came in late and missed her death they would have been asking "where is Janet Leigh"? and for that time killing off a big name star was a huge risk or move
Oh! I don't believe so. To my mind it was a marketing ploy which, in fact, makes complete sense because it is a movie, like so many, has to be seen from the beginning to make sense of the plot.
Holy crap! THANK YOU THANK YOU for saying the remake is NOT a shot for shot remake. It makes me crazy when I keep seeing this.
Hitchcock's Psycho is a masterpiece. That anyone dared to think they could remake it is such an insult... and the epitome of hubris! It's like copying a Van Gogh. It has no value whatsoever.
C’mon now, it’s interesting.
nunca será igual aunque la copien.
psicosis con Anthony Perkins es única.
You REALLY didn't know about the PR gimmick? Up to that time, movies usually included double features, a newsreel, previews, cartoons, etc. (Today, it's commercials and too-long previews that reveal all the spoilers that might've attracted future audiences.) Back then, we entered the theater whenever we liked, often as not in the middle of whatever film was playing. Screenwriters knew this and usually slipped little plot summaries into later scenes so audiences could catch up. (We were also allowed to sit through the whole program again, if we wanted to see the opening material we'd missed--and could even sit there through as much as we wanted as often as we wanted, even till closing.) But A H knew latecomers would be confused and annoyed if they arrived after the shower scene and kept waiting for the star of the picture to show up. So he insisted that no one would be admitted after the credits started. A major consequence: thereafter, theaters more often showed only one movie without all the extras, and emptied the theater immediately after each screening. If one came in late, the only way to see the scenes missed was to buy another full-priced ticket for the next show.
The original Hitchcock scene where Martin Balsam scoots along the front seat of his car was the norm (not Norman) back then as many movies and tv shows has actors doing that. The Andy Griffith Show showed this constantly
If you watch a lot of classic movies, you’ll notice drivers often exit vehicles from the passenger side. I think it was just common practice back then.
In my opinion, the worst “crime” that a movie can commit is not being able to justify its own existence. Psycho has aged well and it’s still just as good today as it was in 1960. If you aren’t going to bring anything new and fresh, why would you ever remake it? The remake had no reason to even be made other than money, perhaps. It’s really sad.
Psicosis was a great film and unique. Anthony Perkins and Janet Light works wonderful.
Hitchcock knows what he do for all the generations.
thanks for your witty and enlightening comparision of the two films, you helped me a lot. i have to prepare a presentation on the same topic for university and stumbled upon this. keep up the good work.
Mate, seriously... Please do more remake comparisons! This is fantastic! Gets what it deserves. Well done.
When I was told Vince Vaughn played Norman bates I thought they were joking
The highway cop actor wanted to do it exactly as the original which was nice to hear since everyone killed the characters except William H. Macy who did an awesome job.
Perkins was and will always be Norman Bates
When a film is an iconic classic , its a cinematic sin to remake it .
The 1998 version falls woefully short .
THE Psycho is the original
In 1960 when this was first screened in the UK I was 9. I remember the night my parents came home from the cinema. They were white and my Mum almost fell down the stairs as she was so scared to go to the bathroom. This film became a ghost for me until I was old enough to see it myself. It is the quintessential horror film because it is so contextual and deep. Nobody today can do Psycho, no matter how hard they try.
I feel like the remake would have possibly been better if Anne and Vince didn't play Norman and Marion. Neither suit the role honestly. If they could have found a better actor that resembled Anthony Perkins more and an actress with a more classic look, it would have improved it a little at least
"Good evening.
Have you ever had a premonition...?
A feeling that something dreadful was about to happen...?"
Hmm...
That intro can be useful for the Final Destination films!
It's interesting that Gus Van Sant first told Danny Elfman about what he was attempting and that Elfman replied to him that he would be killed".
Danny Elfman ended up doing the score for the movie "Hitchcock" about the events of making "Psycho".
lol that walkman line, wtf
@Dessert Storm:
I can't even remember if people were still using cassette Walkmans in 1998. Although I'll note that the CD Discmans of any brand didn't seem to work as well on the go, a little too much movement would cause it to skip, whereas you could run and jog and jolt around a cassette Walkman quite a lot more, no problem hehehehehe
Janet Leigh is stunning actress.
WAS a stunning actress.... she died several years ago...
So WAS anthony perkins!
Excellent documentary. Lots of various shots and examples in the editing. Good job.
The scenes where Arboghast gets out of the car through the passenger side...Just a thought but Hitchcock was British and would have been used to driving in a car with the steering wheel on the other side. But your explanation makes a lot more sense.
I actually enjoyed the remake overall. I prefer the Marion sequence from the original, the Arbogast section is a draw, and I actually prefer the Sam and Lila sequence in the remake. The hardest thing the remake has going for it is that it can't be seen on it's own terms by anyone who knows the original film. One more thing. Have you ever watched the remake with the color turned all the way down? It's instantly better.
I suppose on paper Psycho 1998 is kind of/sort of the same film, but in execution it's not. Really, the only thing that's the same here is a woman named Marion Crane impulsively steals some money and tries to get away to California to give it to her boyfriend Sam Loomis but a rain storm leads her to the Bates Motel, or in Psycho 1998's case just the "Motel," and then she gets knifed in the shower. Eventually, Sam Loomis and Lila Crane discover what happened to Marion, and Norman Bates gets committed into an insane asylum.
I would say in execution it's very similar. Almost every scene is reproduced, and many involve shot-for-shot reproductions.
The quality and tone of that execution is just very different. And ultimately, that makes all the differences.
The problem is it looks cooler in black and white
Agree with all you said. And not to be mean, but what the hell is wrong with Van Zandt!? Okay, riddle me this . . . ya got a film, made by one of the greatest film makers in history, considered “The Master of Suspense”, carrying decades of film experience, a film maker who made one the greatest suspense thrillers in history, maybe even THE greatest suspense thriller in history. Along comes a guy who has not made the likes of Vertigo, North by Northwest, or Rear Window to demonstrate his prowess in celluloid (or the digital equivalent), and he says, Oh yeah, I can re-do what that guy did.
Brother Gus must have one hell of an artistic ego.
I watched both at the same time, one on top of the other. I would play a few moments of Van Sant, then a few moments of Hitchcock, then Van Sant, then Hitchcock, and so on. So I too, knew it was merely a (mostly) scene for scene, but not a shot for shot remake.
Yes, there are certain movies that should never be re-made, Casa Blanca, Shane, The Godfather I & II (not III), Raging Bull. Then there are those that should never be re-made unless your going to do it in an entirely different way, like when Ricky Nelson re-did the 1940’s Frank Sinatra song, Fools Rush In. Sinatra’s was a soft, slow ballad, Nelson’s was a quick shuffling rock and roll. Film-wise, I’m thinking of Out of the Past with Kirk Douglass and it’s loose remake of Lawrence Kasdan’s absolutely brilliant Body Heat. Not that Out of the Past was great, but you get my meaning in changing it up quite a bit, re-arranging the whole orchestration.
Van Sant was not only bold enough to remake the thing he was so arrogant as to do a (again, mostly) scene for scene version.
In my opinion, he should have berated himself for his way overblown ego the minute the idea came into his head! If he had, he wouldn’t have - and I hate to say it as I am not usually a cruel man - never have made a fool of himself. Sorry.
Nobody debates the original as the superior or more meaningful and impactful work...but people are SO QUICK to just write off the remake entirely with no further discussion...that it makes me want to hear and say more about it.
The differences are so small that every difference is worth discussing. The adjustments and everything that comes with them warrant discussion.
It makes me want to give the remake a bit more credit and time of day BECAUSE people just throw it off outright.
i wanted the remake to be a success but after seeing it i thought it was a prime example of why you shouldn't remake a film that had originally made such an impact. also more proof that Psycho works in black and white, not Gus Van Sant's tacky use of color. sorry, thought it was dreadful.
I've been a passionate fan of "Psycho" since childhood (yes, I was indoctrinated to horror very early) and I have to say that while most of your commentary here is absolutely on point, I've actually come to appreciate Van Sant's remake because I choose to watch it from another angle; its true value is the fact that it is the most expensive experimental film ever made. Film schools around the world have long included an examination of Hitchcock's shower scene in their curriculum and only within the last ten years or so, many of them now study Van Sant's too.
I have to admit I was really surprised that for all the criticisms you offer in this video, you didn't once mention the facade Van Sant had erected to mask the original iconic house on the hill. That was the closest his film came to true cinematic blasphemy.
The one reason I really lament Van Sant's attempt is the fact that it had such a strong backlash that there will likely be no other attempts to adapt the narrative. Not anytime soon. Hitchcock's will never be replaced and this film is the one that pops instantly to mind when pondering the worst remake ever. Yes, I'm also a fan of A&E's loosely adapted prequel series "Bates Motel," but I do have to wonder how another take on the original would have panned out with another "visionary" director (as Van Sant was considered by many before 1998) at its helm. That's not happening anytime soon.
You ever buy a $20 Rolex from some scumbag street vendor? That's the remake of Psycho.
I'm more into Vertigo but Psycho was still fun to watch. I'm half tempted to watch the remake but I should probably get wasted first....bad week to stop sniffing glue....
I hated the remake so much to be honest. I didn't even get all the way through it. The original, when I rewatched it as an adult, still had me on the edge of my seat the entire time even though I KNEW the story. The subtlety, the well timed misdirection, the reveal, the pacing, it's all perfect in the original, this one somehow manages to use the same story, nearly the same script, almost all the same scenes, and it somehow manages to bungle every single subtlety so completely that it's just another boring slasher film.
Maybe Van Sant was willing to torpedo his career simply to make the point that Hitchcock was a much better director than anyone around today.
The original is like a familiar roller coaster ride that still gets to you on certain twists and turns. Plus it's just a beautiful piece of cinema and a pleasure to observe as a window to the time period and all the beautiful details.
agreed. and that flowered dress and the little umbrella and sunglasses-I was glad to see Ann Heche get knifed in the remake. dreadful.@@billybareblu
I think you will see Humphrey Bogart exit cars the same way. I don't think it was primarily for safety, but simple economy of effort. The cars of 1960 (and earlier) being so large, "scooting over" the bench seat would get you about a ten yard start to where you were going versus walking all the way around the front or back of the vehicle from the driver's side.
i love how he says "Whacking off." What a strange guys he is, folks!
Curtis Fletcher I feel they added that in the remake as a nod to how norman was in the book as he was a more sexual active character apparently idk I've never red the book
Great analysis! Thanks for sharing it with us. I thought the remake was just downright awful. Updating the movie to be in 1998, while STILL using the 1960 script was just odd, antiquated and made the characters, motivations, and scenes just seem STUPID. Take the opening scene for example where Marion is with Sam in the motel. She was with him for three hours, suposively on a lunch break. They discuss his ex wife, and their affair. Come on! In 1998 there is nothing scandalous about a woman dating a divorced man, so why the shame? Why the motel? Marion would have her own place in 1998. Also, why the intense desire for Marion to be married at all? In 1960, yes. I could see that for a woman. But in 1998, Marion wouldn't need that. She was a working woman, independent, and could simply date whoever she wished without marriage. Also, in 1960 it might have been acceptable for her to take an extended lunch (and go home sick after returning), but in 1998 it screams IRRESPONSIBLE and would end up in her being fired. A lunch hour was a thing of the past.
And that's just the opening scene. Vince Vaugh will never be half the actor Anthony Perkins was.
There are hundreds of films that have been remade or riffed on based on either on the original book, or play, or movie. Sometimes they succeed on certain levels, and that's good. But, there are some movies that stand so tall in the pantheon of greatness that no remake can equal it. Psycho is one. We have all been desensitized by horror/slasher movies and the shock of the shower scene does not have the same effect as it did on moviegoers when the original was released.
Fun Fact: Tobey Maguire, Christian Bale, Robert Sean Leonard, Jeremy Davies, Henry Thomas, and Joaquin Phoenix we’re considered to play Norman Bates in this version
I think Joaquin and Toby would have been way too young at the time
Ironically Jeremy Davies is Roger Eberts choice for a new Norman Bates and yes on camera suggesting this to Gene Siskel in their remake review!
When I was a kid, I recorded the '98 remake on a VHS tape and I'd use to make fun of the badly remade shower murder scene, even with a few friends.
In the original dining motel scene, during the conversation, Janet Leigh slowly starts to realise that Norman is not 100% SANE - though she has no inkling how crazy and dangerous he truly is - and regards him with a patronising pity. There is a sense that "there but for the grace of God could go I" and it motiivates her to return to Phoenix and hand back the loot. In the remake, Anne Heche looks entirely creeped and unnerved by Vince you's expect her to exit screaming. Also, Janet looks a little more sturdier physically against the thin Perkins whereas Heche seems dwarfed by the burlier Vaughan.
This video deserves way more views 👍🏻
The remake should never have been, but at least Van Sant could have made it a little better with good casting, starting with Vince Vaughn, who didn't have the innocence that Anthony Perkins brings to the role of Norman Bates. A far better choice would have been someone like Andrew Garfield.
He didn’t become James Bond, but he did become the US ambassador to Mexico
Seriously. That Walkman line was so out of place
Julianne Moore is a great actress, but kind of looks like she is sleepwalking through this, and Vince Vaughn can't bring the subtly creepiness that Perkins brought to the role of Norman Bates.
Original Psycho is a masterpiece, I'm going to watch the remake as there would be no point, this video does well to explain that. Macy getting out of passenger car door was beyond stupid.
Olivia Hussey damaged my corpus cavernosum.
One could see Janet Leigh being swept away by love and stealing the money. But Anne Heche, a better technical actress, came across as too calculating to go crazy. The major casting problem of many with the remake.
I believe that Willem Dafoe could have made a better Norman Bates in this remake, I mean Willem Dafoe did amazing as Green Goblin in Spider-Man, so he would make a terrifying Norman Bates.
can someone tell me what movie or show the clip at 3:25 is from?
I recently reviewed this on a blog I do and, after watching it again, I realized that you were right about it not exactly being a shot-for-shot remake. I would say it's a scene-for-scene remake but not shot-for-shot. Regardless, it's terrible, and was a dumb idea from the get-go. Did Gus Van Sant really need to do this whole experiment to get the answer to his question, one that should have been pretty freaking obvious?
Exactly. The concept of it makes absolutely no sense. In my opinion the only reason to do a remake is to improve upon the original in someway or add something new or different to the story. Copying the same film scene-for-scene and line-for-line does neither of those. What's the point? This is a rare instance where the movie fails at the conception stage.
For me, this proves that just because you're a critically acclaimed director and an arthouse darling doesn't make you a smart guy.
The point is to make it more relevant/accessible for modern audiences, so they can be exposed to it. Many people under 40 have never seen it.
That said, they could've updated it in other ways as well. This was like putting makeup on a corpse.
Colorizing the original would have been more interesting.
@Haphazardstuff - You sound to me like one of those types of people who go through life finding fault with everything and everyone! Oh, btw, I can't say that I'm familiar with any cinematic releases which you yourself have directed?
Vince Vaugn was way to jock-looking compared to the awkwardness of Anothy Perkins. And that hat that William H. Macy wore looks like something from a cheap Halloween 40s gangster costume! I think the only redeeming thing about the 98 film was Julianne Moore, who gave a freshness to the Lila Crane role. All in all movies should never be remade/rebooted!
It’s s 95% shot for shot remake. The remake is a nice film to analyze. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates was the worst thing that happened. Also changing the house.
I went to see this remake at the theater. I didn't like it that much. Thank you for the review!
Vince Vaughn as Norman????
Not really.
I kinda want a colourised 1960 Psycho. I don't know why, but I really want it now that I've heard it mentioned. I don't care; I want an excuse to watch it.
It gets annoying now that everyone hates the remake. I’m watching it.
it's fun.
For others the character of Sam Loomis is the weak link, but for me he’s almost my favourite character, just because of Donald Pleasance’s performance of the same name in Halloween
Lol 25:33 “Uou think I’m fruity huh!?”
But the only question is, what if you take a bad movie, and do a shot for shot remake of it, but still make changes to the bad parts the original got wrong.
The original cannot be bettered. Great video, I have just done a review of Psycho and I have just subscribed to your channel :).
On the whole I despise remakes. Hitch was the original diamond cutter and the foremost gem setter of this genre. To remake one of his films is like having an art student from a local high school re-paint the Mona Lisa and then someone actually having the temerity and audacity to hang it in the Louvre next to the real deal for comparison. Or some computer whiz with Pro Tools thinking he can remake McCartney's song 'Michelle' and having peeps of this generation hear it on UA-cam and the play stats blow the thing up like it's even in the running. The most sincere type of flattery is imitation and while the 1998 remake of Pyscho is an admirable attempt, it is in many ways a contemptable imitation made not 40 years after the original, made for people whose world view was 180 degrees away from that of those who viewed the original in the world in which it was created. Fifty years from now the original Psycho will still be talked about and revered long after it's imitations have been mostly forgotten. Again, the 1998 remake is an admirable attempt no actor in the history of film making has ever possessed the manifest intensity and at the same time the naïve vulnerability as Anthony Perkins. He WAS and IS Norman Bates!
I'm like you. Those little inconsistencies bug me too!
Even though the remake was terrible, Danny Elfman did do a good job on the soundtrack (even though it is literally the exact same soundtrack as the original).
Loved the original film . Still gives me the creeps . The remake was good . But nothing I feel can compare to the first .
William H. Macy's hat, among others, was one of the cringiest things about 1998's Psycho!
In at 3:05, that was awesome!!!! Dang!
You should also do Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween and Road Warrior.
Video starts at 3:07
14:42 walkman, can a walkman be used to record a conversation?
Yes lots of them had a record function in those days ,although not many of the actual sony walkmans (Trademark) , but thing is also most of the other brands were referred to as said "walkman" to as they all were mostly the same machine with the same function , ironically mostly the other brands were much better & innovative than the sony machines ever were , think of the walkman as the 80s & 90s Iphone , not the best by far but a fashion accessory for those who have no self esteem but to flash their expensive shit in people's faces
Fashion was just really bad in the 90's and early 2000's nobody knew what they were at tbh. Great video btw
There is something more about a movie or any major work of art, not being just a static imprint that can be reproduced.
I need to see Psycho.
Try to see it in high definition so that the greyscale of the B&W film is more detailed. It's a beautiful example of latter day Noir
Fantastic video!! 🔪
Btw, I’m in Arizona so yeah.
The remake sucks big time I rather the original. Vince Vaughn cannot hold candles to Tony Perkins he will always be Norman Bates! Anne Hecht, William H. Macy, Viggo Mortensen, and Julian Moore as Mariane Crane, Detective Arbogast, Sam Loomis, and Lila Crane cannot come even close to Janet Leigh, Martin Balsam, John Gavin, and Vera Miles!
"even Janet Lee's bra."
that is a pretty mysterious bra
Sono convinto che gli attori di psycho del 1960 si saranno fatti una bella risata a guardare il remake...
Thats one of the lamest excuses to remake a movie. When my friends found out I'd seen it they kept asking what i thought and if they would be allowed to watch it. You said it best, it's only good to prove the ridiculousness of remaking a film "shot for shot"
I would argue 90% of it being shot for shot is essentially the same as 100. Not calling it a shot for shot seems less accurate than just rounding up.
This was a good video and yes, I'd agree it's a fascinating film to watch (but still sucks) because it took a completely insane approach.
In the 1950s people would stroll into movies off the street at any time, especially for Western and Sci-Fi flicks, just to see the action and kill a couple hours. They'd watch the second half, then the first half, then leave. In real life people used a phrase, "This is where I came in" to exit some situation that was repeating itself (couples arguing, etc). Hitch insisted on closing the doors so people wouldn't walk in, wonder where Janet Leigh was, and feel gypped.
I saw this film/ and forgot it: if I were a studio head, I would have advised this guy to save his time & money because NOBODY can duplicate HITCHCOCK ...Just saying ...
Great video, thumbs up
Norman is a Chicken?! Lmao 😂 your right
I know of one shot for shot remake that not only everyone should see, it should be hailed as a remarkable achievement by any standard of measure..
It's called Raiders of the Lost Ark. An Adaptation.
Here's a link to watch it.
archive.org/details/RaidersOfTheLostArkTheAdaptationVhsripXvid
Here's a link to the documentary about the kids and their story. As well as their quest to get enough money to finally do the airplane sequence that as kids, they were not able to do, obviously.
Raiders! The Story of the Greatest Fan Film Ever Made
putlockers.am/watch/zGW32rGP-raiders-the-story-of-the-greatest-fan-film-ever-
You can also watch it on Amazon or Netflix.
Paramount pictures is planning to do a bio-pic about the kids that made the film. They sure deserve it.
You question the giveaway in the trailer but look again - it's Vera Miles n the shower, not Janet Leigh.
I never saw the remake. Hitch's original is his magnum opus.
Trailers gave too much info- as to not getting in midway or after the start- back in the "day" people always showed up late for movies- so they would miss the shower scene and not get it. (”)/
1998 went shot-for-shot with an original 1960, and somehow managed to fail
Why did they remake the movie? I suppose because they wanted to and they did. It's not the first time and it won't be the last time. These things seem to happen...all the time...