# Psycho (1998)

### reviewed by
Nathaniel R. Atcheson

    Psycho (1998)

Director: Gus Van Sant Cast: Vince Vaughn, Julianne Moore, Viggo Mortensen, William H. Macy, Philip Baker Hall, Anne Heche, Rita Wilson, Robert Forster Screenplay: Joseph Stefano Producers: Brian Grazer Runtime: US Distribution: Universal Rated R: violence, sexuality, nudity

Copyright 1998 Nathaniel R. Atcheson

You know the story. Marion Crane (Anne Heche, in this case) takes $400,000 from her boss, skips town, and heads into the desert. There, she comes across the old Bates Motel, owned and run by Mr. Norman Bates (Vince Vaughn). If this story doesn't sound familiar to you, or if you don't know what happens to Marion Crane at the Bates Motel, I suggest you go out and rent a film called Psycho. It was directed by Alfred Hitchcock, and came out in 1960.

Or, if you don't like black and white, you could go to the theater and see Gus Van Sant's Psycho. When my screening of Van Sant's version ended, just a few hours ago, I felt that the most appropriate review would be to write the word "Why?" five-thousand times. Since then, I've managed to isolate my befuddlement into coherence. Hitchcock's Psycho isn't a perfect film, but it's a good one, and has some genuine scares and a few interesting characters. It's only been thirty-eight years since it came out; it's really not that dated, and is still effective by many of today's slasher standards. So why remake it?

I was hoping to get my answer. I was looking forward to Van Sant's take on the classic horror tale, mostly to understand why he felt the need to do it. But I didn't get my answer. Van Sant's film is basically a colorized mirror image of the original. The dialogue is the same. The characters are the same. The sets and locations are all the same. Every single camera angle is exactly the same. With the exception of one scene of implied masturbation, and perhaps a little more blood, Gus Van Sant's Psycho is an exact recreation of Hitchcock's original film.

So why on God's green earth was there a reason to make this film *again*? Well, I read that Van Sant was "paying homage" to Hitchcock. I can see it from that perspective. The new film doesn't reek of plagiarism as much as it screams, "I'm such a devoted fan!" Van Sant is a wonderful director (Good Will Hunting, To Die For, and My Own Private Idaho are all exceptional films in different ways), and so I took this remake seriously. Why would a great director feel the need to remake a film of another great director? In addition, the original Psycho had the element of shock -- in this new version, that aspect is lost entirely. As I said, if you don't know what happens to Marion in the shower, you need to see the original first.

Before you flip out, understand that I don't mean Van Sant should have tried to improve on Hitchcock's direction. No, that would have been silly. The fact that Van Sant didn't experiment with different techniques is a good thing. But this story should have been updated; the characters don't speak like people from the 90s -- particularly Norman Bates. The private investigator (played by a wonderful William H. Macy) is a fun character, but do private investigators still act like that? Something tells me they don't. There aren't any blatant anachronisms, but the script hasn't been changed at all.

If anything, seeing this new version reminded me of what was wrong with the original. After Marion Crane dies, the focus shifts to two uninteresting characters -- Marion's boyfriend, Sam (Viggo Mortensen) and sister, Lila (Julianne Moore). As they're trying to figure out what happened to Marion, we're left wondering why they don't just tackle Norman Bates and search through that big old house on the hill. Perhaps when the original came out it was shocking to see the main character die half way through. Moore and Mortensen are both adequate for their roles, but the script just doesn't have much for them to do.

The film isn't bad or unpleasant; Heche and Vaughn both hit their roles dead-on, and any scene featuring one or both of them is inescapably entertaining. In addition, the scenes that everybody will be watching for -- particularly the dreaded Shower Scene -- have been done with class; Van Sant, in a wise move, didn't exploit the violence or go over-the-top with gore. It's only slightly more graphic than the original (though the sound effects are a lot harsher in this one).

Just about the only improvement is on the sound quality of the music (the music, by the way, is excellent). But I know the point was not to improve on the original, but "to bring it to a new generation." I'm not sure why the New Generation can't go out and rent the original, but it seems they're going to be disappointed with Psycho anyway. The New Generation wants movies like I Still Know What You Did Last Summer; Psycho -- new or old -- just isn't gory enough for them.

As for me, I wanted a better reason to sit through a replica of the original. Van Sant is a great director, but the one thing about Hitchcock's Psycho was that it was really shocking. The only way this new version could have been shocking would have been to change it. And, of course it shouldn't have been changed, and so we enter a vicious circle that didn't need to be entered in the first place.

    Psychosis Rating:  5/10

              Visit FILM PSYCHOSIS at
         http://www.pyramid.net/natesmovies

               Nathaniel R. Atcheson

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews