Psycho (1998)

[Oscar Rothman]

https://www.facebook.com/ScreamFacto...c_ref=NEWSFEED

- PSYCHO (1998) – Gus Van Sant’s ambitious and highly-publicized (at the time) remake of Hitchcock’s classic makes its debut on the Blu-ray format.

[formula_nebula]

Pass on this one. This remake fails in comparison to the original.

[Member-222782]

Every announcement has it's fair share of black sheep titles - this is it

[PowellPressburger]

I may be the only one looking forward to this. I really hope there is a brand new HD scan for the movie.

I know it is a hated film but I love what Gus did with the film with his production designers etc. It won't ever take the place of the original but I think after all these years have passed what we have a a well done experiment in a remake.

psycho.jpg

psycho_ver2.jpg

[MifuneFan]

Such a bad movie, one of the worst remakes ever.

[format916]

im really happy about this one. even though the dvd still looks really good.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by Oscar Rothman

https://www.facebook.com/ScreamFacto...c_ref=NEWSFEED

Funny, I seem to remember them posting somewhere that they weren't going to release it, quite snidely in fact. I guess money talks.

Originally Posted by PowellPressburger

I may be the only one looking forward to this. I really hope there is a brand new HD scan for the movie.

I know it is a hated film but I love what Gus did with the film with his production designers etc. It won't ever take the place of the original but I think after all these years have passed what we have a a well done experiment in a remake.

I watched it on blu recently as I have the Psycho box set from Australia. It has its moments but it's also such a wrong-headed film. Vince Vaughn is completely miscast as Norman, and Rita Wilson is completely miscast as Marion's co-worker. The film cannot seem to decide if it's set in the present day or it's a period piece.

[Show spoiler]Plus, the audible sounds of masturbation are not only a crude addition, but having him masturbate completely negates one of the primary driving forces behind Norman "becoming" his mother.

[themp3000]

The only one that they announced that has me quite giddy with excitement.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

Funny, I seem to remember them posting somewhere that they weren't going to release it, quite snidely in fact. I guess money talks.



I watched it on blu recently as I have the Psycho box set from Australia. It has its moments but it's also such a wrong-headed film. Vince Vaughn is completely miscast as Norman, and Rita Wilson is completely miscast as Marion's co-worker. The film cannot seem to decide if it's set in the present day or it's a period piece.

[Show spoiler]Plus, the audible sounds of masturbation are not only a crude addition, but having him masturbate completely negates one of the primary driving forces behind Norman "becoming" his mother.

Yeah, they definitely said that about Psycho IV a few years back, which of course they've now released. Guess it wasn't below them after all?

Originally Posted by cmac

We aren't releasing Psycho IV.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I didn't acquire it nor do I ever plan to. There are much better films to go after.

edit: He also posted this when someone made a list of possible upcoming titles including this 1998 film

Originally Posted by cmac

I think it's safe to say Norman will be back... and not Vince Vaughn

[dallywhitty]

I'll have to give this a re-watch some day. I know it's kinda the 'in' thing to lambast this film (of which I've been guilty of also), but in retrospect, it really isn't that bad. It's just totally unnecessary and the casting is off.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Yeah, they definitely said that about Psycho IV a few years back, which of course they've now released. Guess it wasn't below them after all?

I think it might have even been when they were hinting about Psycho IV being released, there was a post along the lines of "We've got more Norman Bates coming and we're not talking about Vince Vaughn".

All that being said, I am glad that Scream is releasing it because it has its fans and they deserve to be able to own it, and I am looking forward to some interesting discussions about this film on this thread. Despite what I believe it its wrong-headedness, it's certainly a film that has interest.

EDIT: I see you found the post I was thinking of! Thanks!

[El_Fez]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Such a bad movie, one of the worst remakes ever.

Aside from adding a "Lets make Norman really creepy by having him masturbate to Marion in the shower", it's not so much a bad movie as utterly pointless. It's a waste of celluloid by not at least trying something new.

[GasmaskAvenger]

Maybe Bates Motel (the little known failed pilot, not the Vera Farminga series) will be an SD extra for the sake of it, eh?

[javi92]

Will probably pick this up. Interesting to compare this to the original from an academic and critical perspective.

[Ray Jackson]

It seems that no matter how bad a movie is, it always has a small but devoted group of fans that will argue to the death that it's a misunderstood gem.

...I'm sure this one is no different.

[tehthomas]

Originally Posted by javi92

Will probably pick this up. Interesting to compare this to the original from an academic and critical perspective.

Yep. Van Sant had huge clout after "Good Will Hunting" and supposedly got it made just to prove how pointless remakes are. And how pointless indeed.

[travisbickle]

Why would SF even bother with this?

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by tehthomas

Yep. Van Sant had huge clout after "Good Will Hunting" and supposedly got it made just to prove how pointless remakes are. And how pointless indeed.

So he made the movie to waste everyone's time? Weird. I've yet to see this remake. Nobody praises it, so I never saw a reason to check it out.

[format916]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

It seems that no matter how bad a movie is, it always has a small but devoted group of fans that will argue to the death that it's a misunderstood gem.

...I'm sure this one is no different.

compared to remakes such as halloween, hills have eyes, tcm, carrie, etc.. this one really gets a bad rap.

Originally Posted by tehthomas

Yep. Van Sant had huge clout after "Good Will Hunting" and supposedly got it made just to prove how pointless remakes are. And how pointless indeed.

thats not true at all. you watch him talking about making this movie and he is very passionate about it. his point was to bring it to a new audience.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by tehthomas

Yep. Van Sant had huge clout after "Good Will Hunting" and supposedly got it made just to prove how pointless remakes are. And how pointless indeed.

I don't think that's true at all. Every source I read indicates he made it because it was rare to do a shot-for-shot remake using the original script, camera angles, etc. because it was something that hadn't really been done before. It was only in taking this approach that he proved his own remake was pointless, considering most other remakes at least bring something new to the table beyond some "fap-fap" sounds and random inserts of clouds and cows.