New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

I usually open up this column with a paragraph about how I’m never guilty about a movie I like. I never feel guilt about anything I like – taste is subjective, after all. I may have a soft spot for Soul Plane and you might actually like Spider-Man 3 (although let’s hope not). There’s one movie, though, which cannot be liked. Its very premise for being is an affront to many people, and its execution is pretty much a failure from just about every viewpoint. I agree – taken by itself, the remake of Psycho is bad, unnecessary, and could even be insulting. But, as I rarely do, I think Psycho (1998) works conceptually – it’s actually a success in its failure.

Much like probably two-thirds of the world, Psycho is my favorite Alfred Hitchcock film. It’s got the right amount of tension, humor, oddity, and mystery in it, something which I think Hitchcock never quite perfects in some of his other movies. Everything works swimmingly in it – the music is perfect, haunting and suspenseful, the cinematography is stylish and fitting, and the script is subtly complex, fun, and acceptably dated. The film is very indicative of the time period, and when watching it for the first time or the 20th time, you can definitely tell that it’s a one-of-a-kind film, one that does not need to be remade to appeal to a younger audience.

At least Psycho wasn’t remade to appease today’s wayward youth. Director Gus Van Sant, whom you may know as the director whose output is probably the most versatile, both in terms of quality and mainstreamness, has said that his motivation for making it is to prove that a movie can’t be truly remade. I don’t know if this is a point that really needs to be made, but it makes it. Psycho is more than just a generic remake in the vein of The Trouble With Charlie (remember that?); it’s a shot-for-shot remake. Just about every shot is copied from the original, down to the unique cinematography and 1960s clothing (although Julianne Moore’s Lila Crane has a Walkman to show how far we’ve come – and to date this version immediately). Although some things have been updated (the $40,000 Marion steals becomes $400,000), the characters and dialogue remain the same – and it’s occasionally cringe-worthy. Anne Heche’s Marion is flattered when her boss’s client flirts with her, despite her having Viggo Mortensen. She’s still a 1960s secretary. Is this part of what Van Sant was going for?

I think it is, yes. Things like that make Psycho not work as a standalone movie. Bernard Hermann’s score is intact (with Danny Elfman doing something to it to put his name in the credits) and it’s used exactly the same way. Yet it doesn’t work. Although it’s an iconic score, it comes across as cheesy and overdramatic. Why is that? Is it because we know that this is a fabrication? Or is it just because it’s in color and it’s made in 1998? I can’t say, but the color doesn’t help. It slows the film down, and it’s not exactly a fast-paced film to begin with.

Continued:       1       2