Psycho (1998)

This is one of the strangest and most unnecessary experiments I've ever come across, and it serves as unintentional proof of why some films simply MUST be shot in black-and-white to work.

Director Gus Van Sant's much-maligned 1998 release "Psycho" has gone on to attain great infamy and malice in the world of film. A shot- for- shot remake of the Hitchcock masterpiece, the film was plagued by negative buzz and general dismissal before it was even released, and was eventually met with reaction that ranged from confused apathy to infuriated rage when it finally came out. It was a film that people not only hated... they took active pride and indeed seemed to relish in how much they hated it. Slapping the film with constant insults and questioning over and over why it was "necessary." Chastising it for the futility of doing the exact same thing over again while also bemoaning the few times the film made changes because it was "tampering" with a classic. Suggesting the actors involved never work again for daring to try and replicate the original. People love to hate this film, and it's one of those movies that you're expected to automatically loathe, whether or not you've even seen it. Essentially, it's a film that you're just not allowed to like or enjoy... and if you do, you're simply "wrong."Now don't get me wrong or think I'm in any way building up to an attempt at defending the movie itself. Because I'm not. This is an unnecessary remake of an immortal classic. It does fail to even come close to matching the high quality of the original work. And in the end, it's merely a strange little anecdote in the history of film, that's remembered more for how bizarre it was than for its quality. But I do think the film has some inherent value that makes it more worthwhile than many will give it credit for. And I do think this movie was ultimately something that needed to happen. Because even though the movie itself is a failure and is a wholly mediocre watch when viewed on its own merits, what it represents is a fascinating experiment that presents many hours of thought, discussion and debate.A carbon copy of the original classic, the film follows a group of characters, including an embezzler named Marion Crane (Anne Heche), her sister Lila (Julianne Moore), and Marion's lover Sam (Vigo Mortensen), as they enter an intricate web of death and deceit... all revolving around a troubled motel clerk (Vince Vaughn) with what can only be described as the worst "mommy issues" of all time. Outside of some minor cosmetic changes in dialog and style to bring the film into the 90's, and a few characters being slightly reinterpreted, the film is exactly the same as the one we had seen so long ago. And that seems to be the sort-of point behind the movie. It's as if director Gus Van Sant is playing a carefully crafted game, in which he tries to see if quality can be precisely replicated through reproduction of story, dialog and circumstance. He wants to see if he too can make a classic by just following the blueprints. And that's ultimately the failing of the film- it forgets one key issue. The degree of randomness, spontaneity and pure luck that comes as an organic byproduct of film production is vital, and is a part of what makes a film work. And this is lost when trying to create an exact duplicate. Thus, the remake merely feels pale and lacks humanity. It's almost robotic.But... and this is a very important thing to note... I do think that this was an experiment worth taking, and that in being such a fundamental failure, it teaches many valuable lessons and generates some great points of discussion. The concept of a shot-for-shot remake was altogether foreign at the time of release... even alien in a way. Nobody had really seen it done to such a great extent before. And this movie proved why it is such an inherently flawed idea. You can't replicate genius through almost mathematical duplication. And thus the viewer is left with some genuinely burning questions. When is a remake necessary... or even building on that, when is a film itself necessary? What makes one thing brilliant while another thing trite? How can characters and concepts be interpreted in different ways, and what constitutes the most valid approach to a character or story? I've watched Van Sant's "Psycho" several times, and every time it's finished, I find these thoughts flowing through my mind, eating away at me. The original is just such a tour de force, while the remake falls so flat... It's completely fascinating to me. And I do think that the fact the film leaves me thinking lends it more value than many will credit it for.As a film on its own, it's a 3 out of 10. But the interesting production and discussion it inspires almost make me want to raise the score a bit. I won't for the sake of fairness. But I will encourage people who haven't given the movie a chance or have just dismissed it without seeing it give it another shot. Watch it with a more critical eye and allow it to plant some questions in your mind. It's a failed experiment. But it's also a completely fascinating one that I'm glad exists.

Where you try to be exactly like the original but turns out to be a complete messNothing much else to say, same as the original, but not as good. Watch the original. The Movies that could have been made with $20mil and this is what they do, it's just sad there are probably some amazing scripts for movies that will never see the light of day because makers would rather turn garbage like this out instead.

Have you seen it? No? There is likely a very good reason for that...it stinks.Like nearly ALL the endless remakes and reboots that have been plaguing movie goers for the past decade or so....all this is, is a heartless version of the original.It has no heart.It has no soul.It is a retelling of a film that we all love and cherish...and it adds nothing to the story. It improves nothing but the special effects--which held up very well over time--and in some cases belittles the fans of the original...particularly in the fact that they remade the movie at all, without adding anything clever to it.Like so many other remakes it is a hallow shell of the original.