If anyone could ever be said to look and act guilty, it's Marion.
A somewhat-ominous policeman shadows her, almost to the point of stalking. A used car salesman assesses her nervous mood and uses it to bilk her out of some extra cash. She's not an apt criminal, however, and she leaves a wide trail. A woman, Marion Crane (Anne Heche), desperate to find a way to be with her lover, Sam Loomis (Viggo Mortensen), embezzles money from her boss, then goes on the lam. The film opens in Phoenix, on December 11, 1998. Not that these individuals have anything close to the presence of their 1960 counterparts. However, anyone familiar with the plot will be concentrating on technical details and scene deconstruction, an approach that automatically distances the viewer from the characters. Of course, it's entirely possible that Psycho virgins may become engrossed in the experience - it is, after all, the same story. And, most disappointing of all, Vince Vaughn is unable to present a compelling Norman Bates, despite his attempts to mimic some of Anthony Perkins' mannerisms. Viggo Mortensen, replacing John Gavin, is a weak Sam Loomis. As Marion Crane, Anne Heche pales in comparison with Janet Leigh. Only Julianne Moore and William Macy, portraying characters once essayed by Vera Miles and Martin Balsam, hold their own. Color, on the other hand, makes Psycho seem ordinary. Hitchcock chose black-and-white because he rightfully felt that the starkness of monochrome would enhance the movie's power to shock. This is a lifeless, workmanlike project all tension has been leeched away. The sense of deja vu is powerful, as is the sense that something isn't quite right.Īs "accurate" as the 1998 Psycho may be, it's not especially frightening. This Psycho is so like the original that it's eerie to watch. I can't verify whether this is actually a shot-by-shot remake, but many of Psycho's key moments have been meticulously re-created, including the famous shower scene, Arbogast's tumble down the stairs, and the revelation of who Mother is (complete with swinging overhead light). Not only does Gus Van Sant's version use Joseph Stefano's screenplay, Bernard Herrmann's score, and Saul Bass' title design, but Van Sant has elected to copy Hitchcock's style scene-for-scene. In fact, it is like no remake ever committed to film.
Both committed the same sin - they changed a brilliantly dark ending in favor of something upbeat. Two particularly horrible, recent examples leap to mind: the American versions of The Vanishing and Diabolique. However, for every good remake, there are probably ten bad ones.
Psycho 1998 back update#
One could even argue a case for Dino DeLaurentiis' 1976 King Kong, which, while lacking the creativity of the original, performed an update by injecting an element of campy comedy.
Examples include Sommersby, which re-worked the French classic, The Return of Martin Guerre The Magnificent Seven, a Western version of Akira Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai and High Society, which turned The Philadelphia Story into a musical. Successful remakes take older material and do something new, interesting, and intelligent with it. A rare few manage to eclipse their inspirations, but most are, to one degree or another, inferior. Remakes come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. As far as I can tell, there are two audiences for this film: those who have seen Hitchcock's classic thriller and are curious about the remake, and those who haven't previously seen Psycho but are willing to give this new edition a shot because it features actors they "know" and is in color. Redundant and unnecessary as it is, it will likely make money for Universal Pictures (a studio in dire need of a box office success). There's no secret why this new version of Psycho exists.