TR reviews horror franchises: "Psycho"

[Lick Ness Monster]

PSYCHO
1960
Director: Alfred Hitchcock (duh)

Somewhat of a shock here - I don't believe I'd told anyone here on my plans to review the "Psycho" films as a franchise, but, nonetheless, we've gotten five films out of it - rest assured, it was a franchise.
When I made my list of the ten best horror films of all time, the original "Psycho" was absent. It was not absent because of quality; it was absent because it is unfair to compare what is undoubtedly one of the greatest films of all time to the normal slice-and-dice flicks that are my bread and butter. Maybe my list should have been called "The ten best SLASHER Flicks of all time" ;D
But, man, what a movie this is. Every screenwriter should look at this film as a pure, shining example of what film is all about - about misdirection, suspense, and character development.
At the film's open, we are introduced to the character of Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), and her lover, Sam Loomis (John Gavin). They wish to get married but cannot because of Loomis' alimony payments. That day at work, Marion's boss brings in a crony - some snide man who suggests that Marion herself might be for sale, before being assigned to drop off a huge sum of money at the bank for him. So she takes the money and heads off for California to join Sam.
These opening scenes are so effective because they're so natural - not once, not for one second, does this feel like material that's meant to mislead us. Even more skillful is the introduction of the mysterious cop character, who seems to be following Marion - even stalking her. Every first-time viewer feels that this man is the aforementioned "Psycho" of the title.
And then Marion stops at the Bates Motel - and all bets are off.
As Hitchcock himself once said, "it's not the writing, or the great performance that gets people...they were excited by pure film." And "Psycho" is an absolute masterpiece. It features one of the most audacious plot turns in film history - the famous and notorious shower murder scene (see avatar ;D). For those who want some comparison of how this scene would play out today, imagine a horror thriller being released today. Your main character, played by someone along the stature of, say, Julia Roberts, is suddenly and savagely murdered halfway through, leaving the character's younger sister, perhaps played by someone like Toni Colette, to wrap up the plot. Just imagine anyone today being daring enough to do that.
And then of course there's film's original slasher himself - Norman Bates, as marvelously played by the legendary Anthony Perkins. In the novel upon which this film is based, Norman is older, fatter, and very dislikable. Hitchcock made the brilliant decision to cast Perkins, a young, handsome, likable actor, as he's so charming and relatable that one can't help but root for him after the Marion character disappears. He's just such a nice guy...but then aren't they all?
"Psycho" is undoubtedly the best movie I've reviewed so far, wonderfully acted and directed, an awesome score, a captivating tale of crimes of passion and love...and the story of a man's love for his mother...

**** / **** (of course)

[rra]

Nice review. How about the underrated sequels now?

[Triple Kelly]

Good job, TR! No one will ever argue that the original Psycho is anything less than a great movie. And if they do, they will be shot down VERY quickly.

I liked Psycho 2 and Psycho 3 has it's moments. But for some reason I can't get into 4. No idea why. Maybe cause Norman's mom was played by Olivia "Juliet" Hussey and is considerably younger than a pictured Norman's mom at the time of her death.

[Milkman Norm]

I find it overrated and I'm not someone who likes to say that about films that are considered classics. The film noir aspects of the pieces early on are the strongest elements, which granted were placed in the flim to miss lead the audence, followed by Marion's death. The death is shocking but then the film settles into a whodunnit story about Marion's murder and someone taking the money. The final reveal of Norman Bates as Mother is laughable and the scene with the pychiatrist is absurded in my opinon. The ending voice over is unnessary and goes against the established character of Norman Bates.

[Dean-o]

Classic film. Seen it a hundred times and could watch it a hundred more.

[amsiraK]

milkmannorm said:

I find it overrated and I'm not someone who likes to say that about films that are considered classics. The film noir aspects of the pieces early on are the strongest elements, which granted were placed in the flim to miss lead the audence, followed by Marion's death. The death is shocking but then the film settles into a whodunnit story about Marion's murder and someone taking the money. The final reveal of Norman Bates as Mother is laughable and the scene with the pychiatrist is absurded in my opinon. The ending voice over is unnessary and goes against the established character of Norman Bates.

I disagree. The end is fantastic. They've completely lost Norman to 'Mother', who's taken him over. And as creepy as Anthony Perkins was throughout the movie, that last shot of him looking at the camera lets you know... that boy just ain't right anymore.

[Lick Ness Monster]

milkmannorm said:

I find it overrated and I'm not someone who likes to say that about films that are considered classics. The film noir aspects of the pieces early on are the strongest elements, which granted were placed in the flim to miss lead the audence, followed by Marion's death. The death is shocking but then the film settles into a whodunnit story about Marion's murder and someone taking the money. The final reveal of Norman Bates as Mother is laughable and the scene with the pychiatrist is absurded in my opinon. The ending voice over is unnessary and goes against the established character of Norman Bates.

I agree about the psychiatrist - but disagree on the rest. Really, the ONLY change I would make in this movie involves the psychiatrist. After he says his first couple of lines - "Norman Bates no longer exists. He only half-existed to begin with. Now he's gone forever, probably for all time." Right after that, I would dissolve to the scene in Norman's room. That, I think, would make the film absolutely perfect.

[erisi236]

I remember in one class or another having a lengthy debate on if the explanation stuff at the end of the movie was needed or not.

It does kind of feel like a let down of sorts to have some guy at the end basically tell us everything of the hows and whys of what Norman did. Something like that should either be explained as the film goes on or not at all to leave a mystery.

It did set up the pretty good part of Norman being "gone" and Mother talking about selling out her son complete with creepy ass stare though.

[Lick Ness Monster]

PSYCHO II
1982
Director: Richard Franklin

Kudos, first of all, to anyone who even wanted to take a stab (pardon the pun) of even attempting a sequel to Hitchcock's original masterpiece. One can only imagine the sheer outcry that was directed against them, especially since this movie was released in a period when horror sequels were released seemingly at will, often with very low quality results. This also took place in the '80s slasher craze, and many fans hate the idea of dumbing down the original with cheesy blood-and-gore violence.
This movie is no "Psycho" - that goes without saying. But it also has a lot going for it - the least of which is the fact that this movie is an elegant horror film like the original rather than the slice-and-dice nature of the films that were out at the time.
It's been 22 years since the events in the first film. Norman, once again played by Anthony Perkins, has finally been released after a lengthy period of psychiatric care, found not guilty by reason of insanity. With the help of his psychiatrist (Robert Loggia), he returns to the only place he calls home - the Bates Motel.
Needing work, he gets a job at a local diner, where he meets Mary (Meg Tilly), a waitress down on her luck. After a spat with her boyfriend, Norman offers Mary a room free at his home, which she accepts.
But then bodies start piling up - first the annoying caretaker of the Bates Motel (played by one of the great slimeballs in history, Dennis Franz), then a truly chilling murder in the basement of the motel of a couple kids on makeout lane. We never see the killer's face - we have no clue who it is.
This movie is a very effective whodunnit, and is one of the very, very few movies where I actually had trouble placing who the murderer is. But what really makes this movie is Anthony Perkins. With no exaggeration, his performance is Oscar-worthy - with something we would consider as a potentially disastrous idea, a sequel to one of the greatest films ever 22 years later, Perkins does a remarkable job painting a realistic picture of a troubled man attempting to put his demons behind him, of a man who desperately wants to stay on the path of right.
Of course, the eponymous killer in this film indeed does not turn out to be Norman. But there is a plot twist at the end, along with the identity of the murderer, that is truly a surprise - albeit a little out of place. It truly blindsides you.

*** 1/2 / ****

[Lick Ness Monster]

PSYCHO III
1986
Director: Anthony Perkins

I have to state that I'm a huge fan of the way the original trilogy of "Psycho" films played out. For the sheer madness of a character like Norman Bates, the scripts for all three films make a tremendous amount of sense, and make a logical progression for the character to follow.
"Psycho III" would continue this trend. With Perkins himself taking the director's chair, another logical sequel would surely be the result. And this film doesn't disappoint in this regard.
This film takes place one month after the events in "Psycho II." After the previous film's shocking ending, Norman has officially gone back to the way his life was before being incarcerated - with a mummified "mother" in the creepy Bates motel house, running a motel, waiting for bystanders - although no murders have been committed yet.
This film also boasts a very interesting supporting cast. This film has one of the best opening sequences of any horror film, as a nun (Diana Scarwid) has renounced her faith, an incident which leads to the accidental death of another nun. Disgraced, she walks across the desert, with narration giving us lessons about destiny and choosing paths. And eventually, she makes her way to the Bates Motel...
Much like "Psycho II," this also contains a very interesting emotional story, as Norman falls in love with the disgraced nun. There's also a slimeball rock musician (Jeff Fahey), who takes on work at the motel and begins pawing around, and, in the movie's best sequence, taking Norman's new mother hostage and holding her up for ransom. And then, of course, the nosy reporter (Roberta Maxwell) sticking her nose where it doesn't belong.
This film does feel much more like an '80s slasher film than "Psycho II." There's the slut who Fahey picks up and kicks out, who is then murdered in the (actually pretty cool) payphone scene. There's a higher body count than usual for a "Psycho" film. And there's also much more dark humor in this film which director Perkins adds (my favorite being the scene where the sheriff is popping ice cubes in his mouth, not noticing that they have blood on them).
Oh, and there's one scene that is a perfect homage to the original film, which is also a death just as unfair as Marion's death in the original "Psycho." And the ending to this film would have made the perfect ending to this franchise - too bad there would be more.

*** / ****

[Lick Ness Monster]

PSYCHO IV: THE BEGINNING
1990
Director: Mick Garris

One would think that, with a director like Mick Garris ("Sleepwalkers", "The Stand", "The Shining"), this would be a fairly satisfying TV-film. You would be sadly mistaken - as this is the first wholly unsatisfying entry in this series.
Thirty years after originally playing the character, Anthony Perkins once again returned to play Norman Bates. It pretty much doesn't need to be stated by this point but, yeah, he does a great job again.
This film takes place four years after "Psycho III," and, inexplicably, Norman is free again. Not only that, he's married to one of his psychiatrists (Donna Mitchell) - but he feels he has to kill again. Stricken with grief, he calls a radio call-in show talking about - you guessed it - sons who kill their mothers.
He tells his story to the radio host (the excellent CCH Pounder), and this is where the meat of the story lies, as we see the exploits of young Norman Bates (Henry Thomas) and his mother (Olivia Hussey) - and of the cruelties Norma exhibits on her son, not the least of which was applying lipstick to him, dressing him up like a girl, and having her new lover beat the snot out of him on the front lawn.
Thomas and Hussey do great jobs with the characters, and actually, these scenes do paint a very good picture of a fledgling serial killer, of what can make a mind snap. These scenes in and of themselves are well-executed, and not the problem.
The problem I have with this film is that half of the fun of a character like Norman Bates is the imagining. The same goes for the character of Hannibal Lecter - it was so much better when we had no clue why the character did the things he did, and then found out in "Hannibal Rising" that his motives are remarkably simple. And while this film is much, much better than "Hannibal Rising," the true imagining of those early years of Norman's life is gone.
Also, to the previous poster who had issue with Hussey's age, they do explain that in this film - Norman tells the radio host why the voice was different - "She was dead, and in my mind, she grew old."
The film is well-told and well-acted - especially by Thomas, who sadly didn't do much after this film - but overall, it was just an unneeded exercise.

** / ****