Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990)

[mayorofsmpleton]

Originally Posted by ElvisForever

Not to start a war but what is cool about it?

So many shots were changed, the story was changed, the inflections was changed, and the acting was terrible. I went with an open mind, and I came out just bewildered how so many great things in the original could turn out so bad, I will never know. It takes away so much and adds nothing.

When "Norman" was getting "relief", i thought, what nimrod would watch some girl that pops in out of nowhere. Probably the first person he has seen in weeks (months?), much less someone that actually looked good, and then you have an eppileptic fit spoiling what you see? The voyeur is one who can't complete. Vaughn honestly looked like someone that just hates, nitnone that is "ashamed" and turns.

Anway, sorry for that, and not to crap on what you like, but there are so many parts that just come out bad. To me it wasn't an interesting experiment, it was a failure of an experiment. It was also one that didn't stick to the goal. The worst offender was the parlor scene. Vaughn just did not have it. If you have not seen the original at least 20 times, than in the words of Tarantino what comes out as a comparison is gibberish.

Ok done. I like the psychiatrist scene and think that it is essential to the movie, so what do I know.

A failure yes -- but definitely interesting. Not necessarily a film I'd want to revisit again, personally.

[goodnitesteve]

If Olivia Hussey is saying anything negative about Anthony Perkins, it probably isn't her pomposity, I don't think she has any. I remember watching her interviews from Romeo and Juliet and Black Christmas and she's just a very honest person. If something bothered her, she'd come right out and say it. She also said, that comedies (Roxanne with Steve Martin) was not fun to make, but horror movies are.

I agree about Mick Garris being kind of a dull director though. The few films of his I've seen, which generally are tv movies kind of give me a headache. I like that frequently casts Steven Webber though.

The remake of Psycho has to rank higher than that atrocious 1987 Bates Motel. What a weird concept that was. All I remember was something about a Kentucky Fried Chicken-esque restaurant.

[ElvisForever]

Look, ranking Bates Motel 87, with Psycho 1998 is taking a pick between two turds.

At least 1987 had more fun actors, and had a camp quality. But for me to argue it, is truly choosing between turds, both can go down the toilet even if one goes first.

I agree that Olivia has an honesty, but her inflection and tsk tsk crap shows an agenda. The commentary displays it full on. She should have more class for the dead if nothing else. Even if it is just for the fans It is like talking about Bogart dying of cancer and spitting blood, who needs to know that stuff?

Olivia doing it on other occasions only seals that she doesn't mind laying it on. So she isn't prejuduce with her gripes? Maybe she should harness it a little bit at times.

When I was hearing the makeup guy talk about her complaining about a fave mold after not wanting to lay in a coffin, I got the picture real quick. I already heard her griping continually on Psycho legacy, I was hoping she had softened up a bit.

I still like her though. She is a perfect sociopath crack head mom.

[Shalashaska]

I just watched Psycho for the first time a few weeks ago, loved it. Did not know there were three sequels all starring Anthony Perkins though, lol.

How did this happen without Hitchcock?

Would I be accurate in guessing they're all schlock?

[ElvisForever]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

I just watched Psycho for the first time a few weeks ago, loved it. Did not know there were three sequels all starring Anthony Perkins though, lol.

How did this happen without Hitchcock?

Would I be accurate in guessing they're all schlock?

Not for me they are not. All 4 are integral to the story. Look at like this

Star Wars to me is a masterpiece stand alone film (original unspecial no Episode IV tag), but with the other 6 it makes for a much bigger story.

Psycho II you truly gain sympathy for him (though I had some sympathy in first movie).

Psycho III is him full out unhinged and dealing with it and some happiness.

Psycho IV is how he got there and the idea of remorse.

If you look at it as a true collective story (with minor plotholes and time jumps) there is much reward to be had, and then sadness that this great actor is no longer with us. I envy you, do a marathon and report back. Take down all prejuduce and go in with an open mind and stick it out till the end. Don't look at it as a sequel that needs to top the first. Look at them as a supplement to the first that reinforces the story we love so much.

[mca213]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

I just watched Psycho for the first time a few weeks ago, loved it. Did not know there were three sequels all starring Anthony Perkins though, lol.

How did this happen without Hitchcock?

Would I be accurate in guessing they're all schlock?

As far as sequels go, Psycho 2 is very, very good. Its one of my favorites. Richard Franklin had to follow up a Hitchcock film and did a very fine job.

[startrekkin58]

Originally Posted by ElvisForever

I agree that Olivia has an honesty, but her inflection and tsk tsk crap shows an agenda. The commentary displays it full on. She should have more class for the dead if nothing else. Even if it is just for the fans... When I was hearing the makeup guy talk about her complaining about a fave mold after not wanting to lay in a coffin, I got the picture real quick. I already heard her griping continually on Psycho legacy, I was hoping she had softened up a bit.

I still like her though. She is a perfect sociopath crack head mom.

Originally Posted by ElvisForever

About Perkins debates on set. Olivia has shown true contempt in my opinion. There is no denying she is a great talent and added so much to the movie (Thomas for the MOST part kept it down, but he has his share of comments), but her attitude has been very pompous and you can see it all over Psycho Legacy. The director, I am sorry to say, is a hack and it shows. I like the movie, but its problems are very director related and you can see it on the behind the scenes. He has very little control over his workers.

I actually just got done listening to it. I thought she was honest in her opinions. None of the commentators think Psycho III was a good movie; they call it a disaster, which I disagree with but that's their opinions. Tbh, it sounded like she hadn't seen Psycho IV in 25 years since she couldn't remember much. I think her her 'tsk tsk' attitude might just be her English background coming out or maybe she's starting to show her age a bit. I don't think there was any contempt, although I haven't seen Psycho Legacy so I'm probably not getting the whole picture.

I thought the director was pretty knowledgeable and really tried to cover the entire production from casting, music, lighting, script, etc. It sounded like he and Tony Perkins had a mutual respect but the seasoned vet wanted to test the director's knowledge and boundaries throughout the film. Call it ego, call it a learning experience for the director. I think they both learned some things throughout it.

Some of the movie seems a little trite nowadays (like the ending which is a little bit shorter than I would've liked, but it works) but it was made for $4m in 1990 for Showtime primarily. I wasn't expecting the reinvention of the wheel by any means. I think it holds up well with the other Psycho movies.

[ElvisForever]

Originally Posted by startrekkin58

I actually just got done listening to it. I thought she was honest in her opinions. None of the commentators think Psycho III was a good movie; they call it a disaster, which I disagree with but that's their opinions. Tbh, it sounded like she hadn't seen Psycho IV in 25 years since she couldn't remember much. I think her her 'tsk tsk' attitude might just be her English background coming out or maybe she's starting to show her age a bit. I don't think there was any contempt, although I haven't seen Psycho Legacy so I'm probably not getting the whole picture.

I thought the director was pretty knowledgeable and really tried to cover the entire production from casting, music, lighting, script, etc. It sounded like he and Tony Perkins had a mutual respect but the seasoned vet wanted to test the director's knowledge and boundaries throughout the film. Call it ego, call it a learning experience for the director. I think they both learned some things throughout it.

Some of the movie seems a little trite nowadays (like the ending which is a little bit shorter than I would've liked, but it works) but it was made for $4m in 1990 for Showtime primarily. I wasn't expecting the reinvention of the wheel by any means. I think it holds up well with the other Psycho movies.

I like your critique. Yes do see Legacy. You just have to! No Psycho fan is complete without it.

Perkins wasn't without fault, and the director should have pulled rank. But Olivia...no. she had no rank, and should have valued his input more.

However, I am glad she did the commentary and my criticism aside, I am sure she was telling a version of the truth. With him likely starting the suffering from the beginning of Aids, I cut him some slack...he wasn't quite himself.

I don't know how so many could trash Psycho III, but that Tony makeup designer claiming to be super Psycho fan and not seeing Psycho II and III is blasphemy.

I believe she had some contempt, but perhaps it is a brit thing. She was still hot. No question!

[nousefouraname]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

Psycho IV had a screenplay written by the original Psycho screenwriter so I think it has a bit more credibility than II and III. It pretty much ignores them too which also makes it seem a lot more legitimate, though the end result is worse than II and III by far.

It sorta ignores II and III, but I disagree with those that say it totally ignores them or is in a different continuity. That simply doesn't make sense. Norman himself in IV talks about killing nearly a dozen human beings. That number doesn't add up as he only kills 6 in I and IV combined. There is also a line where he says when he went back to the asylum 4 years ago, he hoped it was forever.

So, while one can argue the plausibility of Norman ever getting out after the events of Psycho III, part IV certainly seems to indicate that's what happened.

[nousefouraname]

Got my copy of this a couple of days ago and just got around to watching it tonight. I forget how much I enjoy this movie and I'm glad that my original Psycho series collection is now complete.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

I just watched Psycho for the first time a few weeks ago, loved it. Did not know there were three sequels all starring Anthony Perkins though, lol.

How did this happen without Hitchcock?

Would I be accurate in guessing they're all schlock?

For one thing, Hitchcock was dead by time Psycho II was made.

Psycho II is well regarded and while everybody acknowledges that it's not in the same league as the classic that is Psycho, it was well received when it got released and has always been considered as "surprisingly good" for what looked like a very bad idea.

Psycho III is less well regarded and was a troubled production, but I find it underrated, not least for how it weaves elements from Vertigo into the world of Psycho. It also features a beautiful early score by the great Carter Burwell.

Psycho IV was a TV movie combination of sequel and prequel and I find it a forgettable hack job. The TV series Bates Motel does a better job with a similar premise.

[format916]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

For one thing, Hitchcock was dead by time Psycho II was made.

Psycho II is well regarded and while everybody acknowledges that it's not in the same league as the classic that is Psycho, it was well received when it got released and has always been considered as "surprisingly good" for what looked like a very bad idea.

Psycho III is less well regarded and was a troubled production, but I find it underrated, not least for how it weaves elements from Vertigo into the world of Psycho. It also features a beautiful early score by the great Carter Burwell.

Psycho IV was a TV movie combination of sequel and prequel and I find it a forgettable hack job. The TV series Bates Motel does a better job with a similar premise.

Psycho IV is also the only sequel to include the original score.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by format916

Psycho IV is also the only sequel to include the original score.

So does the remake (kind of) and those two are the worst Psycho films.

[callahan09]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

I just watched Psycho for the first time a few weeks ago, loved it. Did not know there were three sequels all starring Anthony Perkins though, lol.

How did this happen without Hitchcock?

Would I be accurate in guessing they're all schlock?

I like all sequels very much. Here's how I'd score all 4 movies:

Psycho - 10/10
Psycho 2 - 9/10
Psycho 3 - 8/10
Psycho 4 - 7/10

The diminishing quality is fairly slight, though, and I like all of them. Psycho 2 is probably the best horror sequel of all time in my opinion.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by callahan09

I like all sequels very much. Here's how I'd score all 4 movies:

Psycho - 10/10
Psycho 2 - 9/10
Psycho 3 - 8/10
Psycho 4 - 7/10

The diminishing quality is fairly slight, though, and I like all of them. Psycho 2 is probably the best horror sequel of all time in my opinion.

I don't rate movies out of 10... but if I did that seems pretty dead on!

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by callahan09

I like all sequels very much. Here's how I'd score all 4 movies:

Psycho - 10/10
Psycho 2 - 9/10
Psycho 3 - 8/10
Psycho 4 - 7/10

The diminishing quality is fairly slight, though, and I like all of them. Psycho 2 is probably the best horror sequel of all time in my opinion.

How would you rate the remake with Vince Vaughn?

[callahan09]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

How. Would you rate the remake with Vince Vaughn?

1/10, the most pointless movie ever made.

Edit: OK, maybe if I was being generous I'd offer it a 2/10 since it is still a film made from the same script as the original, one of the great scripts of all time. But it's still a terrible, completely pointless movie.

[Todd Tomorrow]

If I were to rate movies by numbers it would be more like this for me:

Psycho 10/10
Psycho II 7/10
Psycho III 6/10
Psycho IV 2/10

[Blu-ray Neo]

Has anyone had any issues playing this disc?

I have a Sony BDPS360 and the firmware is up to date. I can load the disc and all I hear is excessive spinning and see a black screen. The disc will NOT load.

Already contacted Amazon and they're sending a replacement. Just wanted to see if anyone else had any issues/problems.

[Member-167298]

Originally Posted by Blu-ray Neo

Has anyone had any issues playing this disc?

I have a Sony BDPS360 and the firmware is up to date. I can load the disc and all I hear is excessive spinning and see a black screen. The disc will NOT load.

Already contacted Amazon and they're sending a replacement. Just wanted to see if anyone else had any issues/problems.

Uh, oh! I haven't even unwrapped mine. I will try it today