First up: the Psycho series. The interesting thing about this series to me is that most people forge there are sequels. I know I did. And why would one of the great, classic thrillers of all time need sequels? And how is there enough story for Norman Bates to sustain three additional movies (I tend to think there isn't). I'm looking forward to where this rabbit hole might take me. We'll see how I feel by the end of it. A special shout-out to Movie Madness for having II, III, and IV while Netflix has none. Movie Madness: There in a pinch (not their real slogan). I can tell you already, judging by the posters, I don't think I have to worry about anything happening to Norman Bates.
Psycho
--While Marion Crane is running off with the money and getting increasingly paranoid, Norman Bates doing... something. I'm actually very curious about what Norman Bates does when he doesn't have a customer to fixate on. Maybe I do want sequels.
--And is Marion's paranoia making her imagine those voices or are they actually what's going on back in Phoenix?
--It's been a while since I've see this film, so I totally forgot how much foreshadowing there is.
--I'm very impressed at how well Janet Leigh was able to keep her eye open and still as Hitchcock pulled back from it after Marion Crane's murder even if part of it was a freeze frame. Oops! Spoiler alert!
--The "passing of the torch," so to speak (or more appropriately, the "murder of the main character so I can have the spotlight") has been talked about a lot, so I won't dwell on it. But aside from being bold and pretty seamless, I'm very curious if any of the sequels will try the same thing, or at least something like it (and if it could even work a second time).
--I'm really sad that I wasn't around to watch this when it was first released. Aside from the various surprises (the shower scene, the real state of Norman's mother), the trailer prepares the viewer for a massacre of sorts and aside from some standard suspense, nothing really unusual happens for 45 minutes. Did the audience get restless? Were they expecting it to be funnier? (And yes, this is just an excuse to post the trailer.)
--By golly, Anthony Perkins is awesome in this movie. I hope he doesn't turn into a caricature in the later films (as the Psycho III poster seems to indicate).
--The restraint of this movie is pretty amazing. No trick scares or music trying to falsely ratchet up the tension. Just the mystery punctuated by moments of intensity and violence. I wish more horror movies used this approach.
--From IMDB: "After the film's release Alfred Hitchcock received an angry letter from the father of a girl who refused to have a bath after seeing Les diaboliques (1955) and now refused to shower after seeing this film. Hitchcock sent a note back simply saying, 'Send her to the dry cleaners.'"
--It's been said before, but the ending after the discovery of Mother is not necessarily pointless, but kind of a drag. Nothing like finishing up a tense thriller with gobs of exposition.
--I definitely need to upgrade to the Blu Ray.
No surprises. Psycho holds up wonderfully, is masterfully made and incredibly tense. The score is amazing and it features some great performances (though apparently Hitchcock referred to John Gavin as "the stiff"). Now we jump forward 23 years to let the director of FX2 follow up one of the greatest directors of all-time's most famous (and one of his best) films. Perhaps a reason to be slightly excited, Psycho II is written by Tom Holland who wrote Class of 1984, Fright Night, and Child's Play (and also directed the latter two).
Psycho II
My updates my be a little sparser for this one since I've never seen it and have no idea what it's about (I didn't bother watching the trailer), so I'm going to try to pay a bit more attention to it. Vera Miles is back (in addition to Anthony Perkins), so that's something, and Jerry Goldsmith does the music which I can't complain about too much (though right now it's sounding awfully melodramatic).
--It starts out with the old, black and white Universal logo, which is cool, then the shower scene from the original. Maybe people had forgotten about it 23 years later?
--Lila married Sam Loomis? The boyfriend of her dead sister? She has no right to be indignant about Bates' release under the guys of protecting his victims. Some sister...
--OK, I'm going to try not to make this a snark-fest. I want it to be good.
--Norman Bates: Hotel owner/line cook.
--He's looking awfully tan for being locked up for 23 years.
--Meg Tilly looks exactly like Jennifer Tilly. It's crazy.
--Lesson learned, don't look at character names on IMDB before watching a movie I haven't seen. I hope that wasn't one of the big twists (I think it was)...
--Almost thirty minutes in and already this movie is mildly ridiculous. Whereas the original creates a somewhat realistic scenario and characters acting in believable ways, this one is already kind of a mess. There's a sort of hackneyed relationship with the first film. And suddenly Norman not only has mother issues, but knives are a source of torture for him. Silly.
--Norman's regression is coming a little to fast for me. I wish they'd taken their time with it.
--I think we're meant to believe that Norman killed all of his victims in the shower with the amount of importance that's been put on it (there's a weird pause after every mention of the bathroom or shower). Just because it's the most famous scene doesn't mean you need make it the centerpiece of the sequel.
--I'm a little surprised that this fell into the slasher trap of introducing horny, drug-using kids to the plot.
--I definitely spoiled the film for myself. Pretty sure I've got it all figured out an hour into it. Stupid IMDB cast listing.
--Hmmm... maybe I was a bit too hasty...
--The references to the first film are a bit too much for me. It's not enough to have some original cast members and the same set? You have to fill it with call-backs and re-enact shots?
--Mother issues are worked into more than one relationship here. I think I appreciate it, but it also seems a bit on-the-nose.
--There's a scene where a woman moves across the foreground vacuuming. I like to think that would have been Hitchcock's cameo.
--OK, something awesome just happened that I can't spoil for you, but it was amazing.
So... Psycho II is a pretty silly movie. One of the things I like best about the first film is that Norman Bates seems just like a normal person who's trying to cover up for his mother. In this, he's always a mental patient. You question why he would have ever been released, he regresses so fast. The screenplay is the biggest problem. It's all over the map and if you think about anything, it makes even less sense. The acting isn't nearly as good, Meg Tilly being the most awkward the most often, and is frequently pitched at an inappropriate level. The saddest thing for me is Jerry Goldsmith's score is totally uninteresting. He did Alien and Gremlins! I know he's got better in him. I feel like he approached Psycho II as just another paycheck. Since most of you probably haven't seen Psycho II (and I'll admit that there are some decent things about it), I won't go into details, but just about everything that seems clever falls apart upon reflection. The good things make the film all that more disappointing since it doesn't explore them any more than it does. I think I may be going easy on the film just because I wanted to like it, or at least have fun with it.
I've got to admit, my enthusiasm for part III is diminished a little, now. But we've got Anthony Perkins taking his first trip behind the camera as director (first of two) and the man who would write The Fly, Dragonheart, and Kull the Conqueror.
Psycho III
Once again, I know nothing of this film aside from what I mentioned above. I'm even going to avoid the IMDB page for risk of spoiler. I'm definitely not going to get to Psycho IV today, so hopefully this will tide you over for now.
--Both sequels have been rated R. Kind of surprising since Pyscho would easily still get at PG.
--Wow. The intro got my attention. Feels like and Exorcist film. Or one of The Omen movies. Though it also feels like a Vertigo homage.
--Carter Burwell did the music. One of his first credits. This series certainly has a good pedigree of composers.
--Jeff Fahey is ridiculous. I like it.
--It's early, but this film already has some visual references to the original. I wonder if it wouldn't seem so obvious if I wasn't watching them all in a row. For Psycho II, definitely. This one's too early to tell.
--"Stupid bitch! You could've been cummin' instead of goin'." Classic.
-- They get a lot of mileage out of the shower scene footage from the original in these sequels.
--I can already tell what the problem is going to be with this film. The only reason it exists is because of Norman Bates as a character. The viewer doesn't really care about these other characters. If we're watching this movie it's because we want to learn more about him.
--Well, that was an interesting little happening. Maybe these other characters aren't so bad.
--Nevermind. The film just had to cop out and let her live.
--Actually, I'm going to have to mull this one over.
--Anthony Perkins' acting gets more and more awkward as these films go on. I don't know if it's intentional or that he doesn't know how to act psychologically disturbed in a subtle manner anymore.
--It just occurred to me that these movies are exactly like the Scream series (vice versa, really). You have a tortured main character (mentally here, physically in Scream) who keeps having murders happening around him and there are innumerable red herrings and characters to obscure the real killer who is only to be unveiled at the end. Only the Scream series is better.
--Homecoming! More anonymous victims?
--I like that Norman Bates keeps his mother outfit close at hand and kept so nicely at all times.
--Definitely would recognize all of the references to the original. This one has shot for shot moments.
--You can definitely feel the influence of the slasher genre on these films.
--Probably the worst part of these sequels is that you don't feel that Norman Bates has changed remotely over the course of three films. He's still the same disturbed man, so everything becomes redundant.
--Thus far, the only new thing that these films have brought to the original has tainted the impact of the original. Not exactly what one is looking for in a sequel.
--If these films are going to be all about Norman Bates' psychosis, I wish they'd do more to exploit it. Play around with his perception versus reality. Stuff like that.
Well, I'm happy that Norman isn't as over-the-top crazy as the poster would indicate and there are several marked improvements over II, but it's still not very good. I detailed most of my issues above, there was a lot in this movie that didn't make sense. Like why would Norman seek to hire anyone? That's plain ridiculous. However, Jeff Fahey may be the best part of the film, so I guess I'll let that slide. The reporter character is a tired trope in film in general, but here she's just a cardboard cutout of a character. I can't even remember her name. Aside from just making money, there's no reason for either of these sequels to exist (and I hold out little hope IV), though that's pretty much why sequels exist to begin with. They don't even do anything different or unique with the material. They are trying so hard to honor the original that they just end up making cheap knock-offs.
Tomorrow: The made for TV sequel Pyscho IV: The Beginning (of what? We'll have to wait and see) directed by Mick Garris, who has a lot of credits of a mediocre nature, but most notable for creating the unsurprisingly mediocre Masters of Horror series. HOWEVER... the film was written by Joseph Stefano who wrote the original. Intrigue!
Stay tuned...
Psycho IV: The Beginning
The biggest hiccup in watching Psycho IV: The Beginning was if my VCR was going to work and it does! Success! I'm going into this with zero expectations. I imagine that it's going to be about the relationship between Norman and his mother which is perfectly clear in the original Psycho. I don't know if we really need to go into it any further. Plus, since this one was made for TV, I can't even pretend it's a money grab. And remember, Mick Garris directed the "more faithful," but less good The Shining mini-series. I can't believe I'm going to watch a VHS. I can't remember the last time I chose to do this.
--Tracking!
--There was a Universal Studios trailer prior to the movie. Actually, that makes a lot of sense.
--Olivia Hussey! And Henry Thomas (aka Elliott from E.T.) as young Norman Bates.
--They're using Bernard Hermann's original score. It's still awesome. Let's see how it meshes with this movie.
--I feel like radio call-in shows as plot points were really big in the late-80s and early-90s.
--Norman Bates is doing all right for himself.
--Huh. Boobs. I guess it was made for HBO or something...
--I'm kind of surprised that Psycho IV isn't the story about what drove Norman to kill his mother. I hope this surprise leads to enjoyment.
--The screeching violins don't really work out of the context of the original. The blend of image and music is inadequate.
--Ah, there's the super-young Norman.
--There's something that doesn't mesh about Norman Bates in the original and him spilling his guts to a radio host in IV.
--John Landis cameo!
--Did people used to keep strychnine in their kitchen cupboards?
--There's some inconsistency with the events portrayed here as they are shown to happen in earlier movies.
I was all set to rate Psycho IV higher than the other sequels. Much of the flashback stuff is fairly effective, if unsurprising. Unlike the other sequels, it does add to Norman's story. However, the radio call-in show stuff kills the movie. It's totally absurd that Norman Bates would unload like this, especially with as much therapy he's gotten in his life at this point. For all intents and purposes, he should have his own psychiatrist. It's ridiculous. Then, when it finally gets to the flashback of him killing his mother and her boyfriend, the movie values shock and action over accuracy. The more time I spend with and thinking about Psycho IV, the less I like it. However, absurdity aside, I think it does the best at emulating the tone of the original without simply repeating the beats. You could definitely feel the influence of 80s slasher movies on II and III and that is lacking here. Perhaps Bernard Hermann's score is all that the others needed to make them better movies...
I'm beginning to think that if I do this more, the overall article is going exhibit the same trend, which may not make for the best reading on your part. Hell, I don't think I'm entirely happy with the format of this write-up. I'll definitely do this again, it just may take a different form next time unless I'm told otherwise. I'm a little nervous to give away spoilers from the sequels since I'm sure many haven't seen them.
Anyway, thanks for reading! I'll take suggestions for the next series if you're feeling frisky.
--While Marion Crane is running off with the money and getting increasingly paranoid, Norman Bates doing... something. I'm actually very curious about what Norman Bates does when he doesn't have a customer to fixate on. Maybe I do want sequels.
--And is Marion's paranoia making her imagine those voices or are they actually what's going on back in Phoenix?
--It's been a while since I've see this film, so I totally forgot how much foreshadowing there is.
--I'm very impressed at how well Janet Leigh was able to keep her eye open and still as Hitchcock pulled back from it after Marion Crane's murder even if part of it was a freeze frame. Oops! Spoiler alert!
--The "passing of the torch," so to speak (or more appropriately, the "murder of the main character so I can have the spotlight") has been talked about a lot, so I won't dwell on it. But aside from being bold and pretty seamless, I'm very curious if any of the sequels will try the same thing, or at least something like it (and if it could even work a second time).
--I'm really sad that I wasn't around to watch this when it was first released. Aside from the various surprises (the shower scene, the real state of Norman's mother), the trailer prepares the viewer for a massacre of sorts and aside from some standard suspense, nothing really unusual happens for 45 minutes. Did the audience get restless? Were they expecting it to be funnier? (And yes, this is just an excuse to post the trailer.)
--By golly, Anthony Perkins is awesome in this movie. I hope he doesn't turn into a caricature in the later films (as the Psycho III poster seems to indicate).
--The restraint of this movie is pretty amazing. No trick scares or music trying to falsely ratchet up the tension. Just the mystery punctuated by moments of intensity and violence. I wish more horror movies used this approach.
--From IMDB: "After the film's release Alfred Hitchcock received an angry letter from the father of a girl who refused to have a bath after seeing Les diaboliques (1955) and now refused to shower after seeing this film. Hitchcock sent a note back simply saying, 'Send her to the dry cleaners.'"
--It's been said before, but the ending after the discovery of Mother is not necessarily pointless, but kind of a drag. Nothing like finishing up a tense thriller with gobs of exposition.
--I definitely need to upgrade to the Blu Ray.
No surprises. Psycho holds up wonderfully, is masterfully made and incredibly tense. The score is amazing and it features some great performances (though apparently Hitchcock referred to John Gavin as "the stiff"). Now we jump forward 23 years to let the director of FX2 follow up one of the greatest directors of all-time's most famous (and one of his best) films. Perhaps a reason to be slightly excited, Psycho II is written by Tom Holland who wrote Class of 1984, Fright Night, and Child's Play (and also directed the latter two).
Psycho II
My updates my be a little sparser for this one since I've never seen it and have no idea what it's about (I didn't bother watching the trailer), so I'm going to try to pay a bit more attention to it. Vera Miles is back (in addition to Anthony Perkins), so that's something, and Jerry Goldsmith does the music which I can't complain about too much (though right now it's sounding awfully melodramatic).
--It starts out with the old, black and white Universal logo, which is cool, then the shower scene from the original. Maybe people had forgotten about it 23 years later?
--Lila married Sam Loomis? The boyfriend of her dead sister? She has no right to be indignant about Bates' release under the guys of protecting his victims. Some sister...
--OK, I'm going to try not to make this a snark-fest. I want it to be good.
--Norman Bates: Hotel owner/line cook.
--He's looking awfully tan for being locked up for 23 years.
--Meg Tilly looks exactly like Jennifer Tilly. It's crazy.
--Lesson learned, don't look at character names on IMDB before watching a movie I haven't seen. I hope that wasn't one of the big twists (I think it was)...
--Almost thirty minutes in and already this movie is mildly ridiculous. Whereas the original creates a somewhat realistic scenario and characters acting in believable ways, this one is already kind of a mess. There's a sort of hackneyed relationship with the first film. And suddenly Norman not only has mother issues, but knives are a source of torture for him. Silly.
--Norman's regression is coming a little to fast for me. I wish they'd taken their time with it.
--I think we're meant to believe that Norman killed all of his victims in the shower with the amount of importance that's been put on it (there's a weird pause after every mention of the bathroom or shower). Just because it's the most famous scene doesn't mean you need make it the centerpiece of the sequel.
--I'm a little surprised that this fell into the slasher trap of introducing horny, drug-using kids to the plot.
--I definitely spoiled the film for myself. Pretty sure I've got it all figured out an hour into it. Stupid IMDB cast listing.
--Hmmm... maybe I was a bit too hasty...
--The references to the first film are a bit too much for me. It's not enough to have some original cast members and the same set? You have to fill it with call-backs and re-enact shots?
--Mother issues are worked into more than one relationship here. I think I appreciate it, but it also seems a bit on-the-nose.
--There's a scene where a woman moves across the foreground vacuuming. I like to think that would have been Hitchcock's cameo.
--OK, something awesome just happened that I can't spoil for you, but it was amazing.
So... Psycho II is a pretty silly movie. One of the things I like best about the first film is that Norman Bates seems just like a normal person who's trying to cover up for his mother. In this, he's always a mental patient. You question why he would have ever been released, he regresses so fast. The screenplay is the biggest problem. It's all over the map and if you think about anything, it makes even less sense. The acting isn't nearly as good, Meg Tilly being the most awkward the most often, and is frequently pitched at an inappropriate level. The saddest thing for me is Jerry Goldsmith's score is totally uninteresting. He did Alien and Gremlins! I know he's got better in him. I feel like he approached Psycho II as just another paycheck. Since most of you probably haven't seen Psycho II (and I'll admit that there are some decent things about it), I won't go into details, but just about everything that seems clever falls apart upon reflection. The good things make the film all that more disappointing since it doesn't explore them any more than it does. I think I may be going easy on the film just because I wanted to like it, or at least have fun with it.
I've got to admit, my enthusiasm for part III is diminished a little, now. But we've got Anthony Perkins taking his first trip behind the camera as director (first of two) and the man who would write The Fly, Dragonheart, and Kull the Conqueror.
Psycho III
Once again, I know nothing of this film aside from what I mentioned above. I'm even going to avoid the IMDB page for risk of spoiler. I'm definitely not going to get to Psycho IV today, so hopefully this will tide you over for now.
--Both sequels have been rated R. Kind of surprising since Pyscho would easily still get at PG.
--Wow. The intro got my attention. Feels like and Exorcist film. Or one of The Omen movies. Though it also feels like a Vertigo homage.
--Carter Burwell did the music. One of his first credits. This series certainly has a good pedigree of composers.
--Jeff Fahey is ridiculous. I like it.
--It's early, but this film already has some visual references to the original. I wonder if it wouldn't seem so obvious if I wasn't watching them all in a row. For Psycho II, definitely. This one's too early to tell.
--"Stupid bitch! You could've been cummin' instead of goin'." Classic.
-- They get a lot of mileage out of the shower scene footage from the original in these sequels.
--I can already tell what the problem is going to be with this film. The only reason it exists is because of Norman Bates as a character. The viewer doesn't really care about these other characters. If we're watching this movie it's because we want to learn more about him.
--Well, that was an interesting little happening. Maybe these other characters aren't so bad.
--Nevermind. The film just had to cop out and let her live.
--Actually, I'm going to have to mull this one over.
--Anthony Perkins' acting gets more and more awkward as these films go on. I don't know if it's intentional or that he doesn't know how to act psychologically disturbed in a subtle manner anymore.
--It just occurred to me that these movies are exactly like the Scream series (vice versa, really). You have a tortured main character (mentally here, physically in Scream) who keeps having murders happening around him and there are innumerable red herrings and characters to obscure the real killer who is only to be unveiled at the end. Only the Scream series is better.
--Homecoming! More anonymous victims?
--I like that Norman Bates keeps his mother outfit close at hand and kept so nicely at all times.
--Definitely would recognize all of the references to the original. This one has shot for shot moments.
--You can definitely feel the influence of the slasher genre on these films.
--Probably the worst part of these sequels is that you don't feel that Norman Bates has changed remotely over the course of three films. He's still the same disturbed man, so everything becomes redundant.
--Thus far, the only new thing that these films have brought to the original has tainted the impact of the original. Not exactly what one is looking for in a sequel.
--If these films are going to be all about Norman Bates' psychosis, I wish they'd do more to exploit it. Play around with his perception versus reality. Stuff like that.
Well, I'm happy that Norman isn't as over-the-top crazy as the poster would indicate and there are several marked improvements over II, but it's still not very good. I detailed most of my issues above, there was a lot in this movie that didn't make sense. Like why would Norman seek to hire anyone? That's plain ridiculous. However, Jeff Fahey may be the best part of the film, so I guess I'll let that slide. The reporter character is a tired trope in film in general, but here she's just a cardboard cutout of a character. I can't even remember her name. Aside from just making money, there's no reason for either of these sequels to exist (and I hold out little hope IV), though that's pretty much why sequels exist to begin with. They don't even do anything different or unique with the material. They are trying so hard to honor the original that they just end up making cheap knock-offs.
Tomorrow: The made for TV sequel Pyscho IV: The Beginning (of what? We'll have to wait and see) directed by Mick Garris, who has a lot of credits of a mediocre nature, but most notable for creating the unsurprisingly mediocre Masters of Horror series. HOWEVER... the film was written by Joseph Stefano who wrote the original. Intrigue!
Stay tuned...
Psycho IV: The Beginning
The biggest hiccup in watching Psycho IV: The Beginning was if my VCR was going to work and it does! Success! I'm going into this with zero expectations. I imagine that it's going to be about the relationship between Norman and his mother which is perfectly clear in the original Psycho. I don't know if we really need to go into it any further. Plus, since this one was made for TV, I can't even pretend it's a money grab. And remember, Mick Garris directed the "more faithful," but less good The Shining mini-series. I can't believe I'm going to watch a VHS. I can't remember the last time I chose to do this.
--Tracking!
--There was a Universal Studios trailer prior to the movie. Actually, that makes a lot of sense.
--Olivia Hussey! And Henry Thomas (aka Elliott from E.T.) as young Norman Bates.
--They're using Bernard Hermann's original score. It's still awesome. Let's see how it meshes with this movie.
--I feel like radio call-in shows as plot points were really big in the late-80s and early-90s.
--Norman Bates is doing all right for himself.
--Huh. Boobs. I guess it was made for HBO or something...
--I'm kind of surprised that Psycho IV isn't the story about what drove Norman to kill his mother. I hope this surprise leads to enjoyment.
--The screeching violins don't really work out of the context of the original. The blend of image and music is inadequate.
--Ah, there's the super-young Norman.
--There's something that doesn't mesh about Norman Bates in the original and him spilling his guts to a radio host in IV.
--John Landis cameo!
--Did people used to keep strychnine in their kitchen cupboards?
--There's some inconsistency with the events portrayed here as they are shown to happen in earlier movies.
I was all set to rate Psycho IV higher than the other sequels. Much of the flashback stuff is fairly effective, if unsurprising. Unlike the other sequels, it does add to Norman's story. However, the radio call-in show stuff kills the movie. It's totally absurd that Norman Bates would unload like this, especially with as much therapy he's gotten in his life at this point. For all intents and purposes, he should have his own psychiatrist. It's ridiculous. Then, when it finally gets to the flashback of him killing his mother and her boyfriend, the movie values shock and action over accuracy. The more time I spend with and thinking about Psycho IV, the less I like it. However, absurdity aside, I think it does the best at emulating the tone of the original without simply repeating the beats. You could definitely feel the influence of 80s slasher movies on II and III and that is lacking here. Perhaps Bernard Hermann's score is all that the others needed to make them better movies...
I'm beginning to think that if I do this more, the overall article is going exhibit the same trend, which may not make for the best reading on your part. Hell, I don't think I'm entirely happy with the format of this write-up. I'll definitely do this again, it just may take a different form next time unless I'm told otherwise. I'm a little nervous to give away spoilers from the sequels since I'm sure many haven't seen them.
Anyway, thanks for reading! I'll take suggestions for the next series if you're feeling frisky.
No comments:
Post a Comment