Psycho II (1983)

...because it's not a fair comparison. Hitchcock is long gone.If, however, you judge Psycho II on strictly its own merits, it's pretty good. Or as good as I think a sequel to Psycho could ever be.Anthony Perkins is a large reason for this. He still has it. Many closed doors and strange passageways etched onto his face. Perkins delivers.Jerry Goldsmith - the composer....comes up with something COMPLETELY different than Hermann did. And once again, on its own and without judging it or comparing it to the original, it's quite beautiful and sad.Now I can't say much for the sequels that continued past this one, but Psycho II is a guilty pleasure of mine.

The original "Psycho", directed by Alfred Hitchcock, is one of the seminal horror films of all-time. However, Hitch didn't believe in sequels, so it took about two decades and a new director (Richard Franklin) to revive this franchise. Surprisingly, it is an entertaining re=entry into the world of Norman Bates.For a basic plot summary, "Psycho II" picks up with Bates (Anthony Perkins) being released from prison after his earlier murders. After being brought back to his motel business, Norman begins to struggle once again with the demons of his past.What really gives this film credence is the return of Perkins as Bates. He does a remarkable job of playing a supposedly "reformed" Bates, both tortured by past memories yet trying to get back on the right mental track. A major role for Vera Miles is also a nice nod to the original.I can't say much about the plot without giving things away, but suffice it to say that it is very thoughtful as horror flicks go. It's never stale, and the ending easily recalls the "shock factor" of the first effort.Thus, "Psycho II" is a solid addition to one of the stalwart thriller/horror franchises. It is well- acted, has an engaging plot, and will at least make you curious about checking out part three.

The original Psycho was great film. But this is better. This a very scary movie. This is one of the scariest movies from 1983. Never watch it alone. 6.4 is underrating it. It is one of the scariest movie made before 1986. It has great story line. It also has great acting. I do not know how to talk about the plot with out having a lot of spoilers for the first movie. I do not like having spoilers. I just hate spoilers. I did not think the twist in Friday the 13th V was so great. But I hate that there are so many spoilers about it. Saw I will say that this is a scary movie. See it. It has great special effects. Anthony Perkins it very scary in it. Psycho III is better. Still great movie.

When people decide to make a sequel to an already dubbed horror masterpiece it almost every time disappoint. Since the first one is a masterpiece in horror cinema history I thought this was going to be a boring sequel but man I was wrong. Often movie sequels (no matter what genre) that come out more than 10 years later after the previous one end up like garbage but this was a very well made sequel, I think it needs more love and respect than it actually got. Fans of the first one either hate this or love this movie but Im one of those who loved it. I liked how they managed to move on from the first movie and I thought all of the characters was likable. The only problem with it is that it runs for 113 minutes which made it a little bit too drawn out.