 "In comparison to the original Masterpiece....." | 2010-02-21 |
| - Reviewed By M Thomas Jacob Morgan |
There is a line of defense for Psycho 2 by most reviewers who recognize the greatness of Hitchock's original Psycho (and possibly best work) which is a fair judgment. However if Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho would be compared to a faithful and beautiful German Shepard and if that dog died...Psycho 2 would be like getting another dog to replace the original with a retarded dog that would urinate and defecate all over your house.
Yes, the film attempts to make the audience sympathize with newly released and possibly cured Norman Bates who moves back to the same house and eventually works at the same hotel but the absolute ridiculousness applied to the time and coincidence of events in this film requires shutting off your brain to just simply be entertained.
Any of Hitchcock's film would never require you to shut off your brain but they always challenged the viewer to put your brian in overdrive and brought an engaging story and a well written and well executed plot that always paid off.
Psycho 2 should be avoided if you are a die hard Hitchcock fan, if you are a horror fan who is used to crappy sequels to original greats than perhaps you will find it mildly entertaining.
|
| |
 "Excellent" | 2009-12-14 |
| - Reviewed By Erwin O. Vehs Jr. from Connecticut |
This movie was excellent,just as good as if not better than the 1st Psycho!
the quality was great and the movie was full of suspense and thrills.(if you can call it thrills)
very pleased all round with this one kept me interested all the way through. |
| |
 "A lot better than it has any right to be." | 2009-12-11 |
| - Reviewed By Mr. Censored from Maine |
"Psycho II" may open by recycling the iconic shower scene from Hitchcock's classic, but rest assured that the rest of the film is hardly a re-hashing of old ideas. Instead, the sequel, which arrived a whopping 23 years after the original, has a few new tricks up its sleeve. You'll be surprised to find that the film actually justifies its own existence by not cheapening the original or itself. More psychological thriller than slasher, it also stood well against the "Friday the 13ths" of its time, instead of falling in line with certain trends of the 1980's.
Directed by Richard Franklin from a script by Tom Holland, "Psycho II" finds Anthony Perkins reprising his iconic role as Norman Bates, while Vera Miles also returns to her character, Hell-bent on avenging her sister's death. The film finds Norman Bates being released from the sanitarium only to return home to resume business at the Bates Motel. Slowly, he works his way back into society by getting a job at a diner, but things go awry very quickly when he takes a co-worker (Meg Tilly) under his wing. Is Mother still nagging him or are there other forces at work?
Frankly, the film isn't as good as the original, but then again, how could it be? Although Hitchcock himself probably wouldn't have bothered with a sequel, "Psycho II" is about as good of an effort as anyone could make. The script is very careful not to repeat the previous film and Perkins in particular is spot on as Norman, having not missed a beat in all the time between films. Those who consider "Psycho" a cinematic delicacy may find a sequel a bit unnecessary, but in all honesty, it's a sequel that deserves to be seen.
"Psycho II" was followed by two more sequels (one being a TV-movie/prequel) and a remake in 1998. Of the four, this is the finest follow-up. |
| |
| "Great continuation!" | 2009-07-11 |
| - Reviewed By wearevinyl from Lawrenceville, New Jersey United States |
Despite the fact that i wasn't born when the original 'Psycho' was released, I did have the pleasure of seeing this sequel in the theaters. Seeing Part 1 on tv a few times gave me an idea of what to expect, but considering the fact that Hitchcock had nothing to do with part 2 (Hitch had died years earlier) I had hoped this one would grab my attention.
It did.
Like the original, this one had a few killing set pieces that were not only horrifying, but appropriate. Like myself, members of the audience did jump out of their seats at the right moments. Laughed at the right moments, and were tranced, thinking whoever made this film kept the pace going all the way to the final climax. A climax with such a twist you kinda didn't know it was coming.
If you enjoyed the original 1960 'Psycho', this is a faithful sequel, a sequel that does not stray much from what you would expect.
Perkins is his natural great self, a wonderful actor who had a hard time with later roles, as his role in the original version stuck with him. Nontheless, he was one of the better, natural actors of our time.
Vera Miles has a small role in the film, but was a treat to see how wonderfull she still looks.
Meg Tilly, again, another great actress. Her performance enhanced the structure of the film, that I think any other actress would have a hard time keeping up with the pace.
5 stars for effort, and at times a few moments of brilliance for a film that will keep you at the edge of your seats until the final frame. |
| |
| "Oh why not." | 2009-04-02 |
| - Reviewed By Kevin Killian from San Francisco, CA United States |
As far as I know there's never been a satisfactory account of the relationship between Alfred Hitchcock and Vera Miles, and he is sometimes said to have hardened his heart against her when her pregnancy forced her to drop out of the lead role in VERTIGO. I wonder if any film fans regret that Vera Miles did not play Madeleine and Judy in the San Francisco-set classic--I always have loved Kim Novak in the part. And Vera Miles' work in actual Hitchcock productions like THE THIRD MAN, INCIDENT AT A CORNER and the original PSYCHO, don't convince me that she was a glamorous leading lady type. John Ford too had a weakness for her, casting her in two of his greatest films, but again we never think of Miles as one of John Ford's repertory company. She's just serviceable as far as I'm concerned, and yet she does give a remarkable ballsy performance in Richard Franklin's PSYCHO II, bringing back her original Lila Crane character and showing how the experience of being the sister of a murder victim well, warped her I guess.
We learn that Lila married John Gavin (wow, too bad they couldn't have brought him back too), which if you ask me is pretty sick considering that Sam was actually having an affair with Marion right up until the day they died. Her husband, Lila now snaps, is "dead." (I wonder if there's a story there!) Did they have any children? Well, I won't say because that might spoil part of the movie for you.
Franklin's sequel is a respectable "stab" at PSYCHO greatness and benefits strongly from the contrast in Norman's world from the original black and white to the color of the early 1980s; everything seems different to Norman, who refuses to open up the motal again and instead takes a job as a short order cook in a diner under some sort of "liberal" ex-con rehabilitation program. Immediately he starts getting hassled by curious serial killer haters, including Dennis Franz who has turned the Bates Motel into a swingers paradise while Norman has been in jail.
The "real mother" plot comes out of left field if you ask me, but that is the only weakness in the film--oh, and also the way the screenwriters make the relationship between Meg Tilly and Norman so coyly chaste. What was that all about? Wouldn't it have humanized Norman immeasurably if he could have had a real affair with a real woman? You can tell "Mery" (the waitress played by Meg Tilly) would have . . . Is the idea that being the son of Mrs. Bates turned Norman against women? Meg Tilly, of course, is the 1980s' greatest actress and her leaving films for writing is a tragic loss to the cinema, and this is one of her greatest parts. Vera Miles is still alive too, the two of them should come back in a PSYCHO V, sort of an AUTUMN SONATA in which I would write and direct them in an eternal round of accusations and crumpled dreams. |
| |
| "4.5 Stars, Surprisingly a Respectable Sequel" | 2009-03-05 |
| - Reviewed By M. Ryan Fairbanks from Cleveland, Ohio |
Psycho 2 had quite a tough act to follow, and considering that it was 23 years belated and released amidst the slasher craze of the 80's, it probably had disaster written all over it. However this is a surprisingly good sequel and a good movie on it's own. Obviously it's good in a very different way than the original, but this simply means that the series has succeeded in two different eras of horror movies.
23 years after the infamous night at the Bates Motel, Norman is declared officially sane once again and returns to his home to live a normal life and work at the local diner. Not everyone in town is happy about Norman's return to civilization, but most want to give him a fair shot at getting his life back together, especially his doctor. However it isn't long before Norman starts hearing from Mother again, and he is having a hard time resisting her commands, and his new female room mate makes things all the more tempting for him.
To avoid spoilers, not much can be said in regards to the storyline. Psycho 2 is a well crafted and clever who-dunnit that builds in suspense throughout the course of the movie, resulting in a fantastic twist ending. Although there is a notable body count and an increase in blood shed, Psycho 2 doesn't succumb to the cookie-cutter 80's slasher format. It surprisingly manages to be somewhat scary while boasting a coherent story line, no small feat. If you liked the original, chances are you'll like Psycho 2 as well.
|
| |
Expedited Available
