It is a very difficult thing to review this movie. I'm still not
entirely sure how to do it. It perhaps should be said that I'm leaning
toward the approach of not taking this as a film at all, but instead a
fact. Hitchcock's original was a masterpiece, the best film of his
career and quite probaly one of the best movies ever made. The plot was
intruiging and whicked, and it drew you right in to the head of a true
psychopath. Norman Bates, as played by Anthony Perkins, was a most shy
and nonchalant killer. In fact, you too couldn't possibly believ that
he was a killer, he wouldn't harm a fly. Of course director Gus Van
Sant wasn't really attempting to make a better movie then Hitchcock. In
fact, I don't believe that he was really attempting to make a good movie
at all. His real ambition was to get right inside Hitchcock's head and
see what it must have been like to be this man, making this movie. And
maybe by completely re-creating this movie shot by shot, he could
uncover some interesting secret that we have yet to stumble upon.
But the question still remains, is this a good movie? I'd have to
say yes. The script is good and the camera angles and various visual
techniques work just as well as when Hitchcock used them. But, then
again they are the exact same camera angles and various visual
techniques that Hitchcock used. Exactly the same. But that still
doesn't distract from how good they are. And that's really what drives
this movie, it is the exact same film that Hitchcock made, no different.
But there just seems to be a little inkling of something that keeps this
"Psycho" from being as good as the other "Psycho". Perhaps it's the
simple fact that something always seems better when you see it for the
first time. It juse seems fresher, and that is one of the big elements
in the judging of a movie.