PSYCHO remake

blufeld
Member
Joined: 4:34 PM - Mar 21, 2017

4:44 PM - Jun 13, 2018 #1

Why do people hate-literally hate-the remake of PSYCHO with Vince Vaughn?  Sure, it was unnecessary.  And the casting of Vince Vaughn in Tony Perkins 'once in a lifetime role' was poorly thought out (Vince would be ok in John Gavin's role) and NOBODY could even be come close to Perkins as Norman.  Having said that, we've seen remakes, some good, mostly not so good, but I don't know that another remake that is so despised as this one.  I've seen it (once) and probably never watch it again, but the story is still good (as in BILLY JACK GOES TO WASHINGTON, the story is still good but it's no way that it is MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, heck Leonard Maltin gives BJ 2 stars on the story.)  So why?
Quote
Like
Share

Crow T Robot
Member
Joined: 11:28 PM - May 16, 2007

7:41 PM - Jun 13, 2018 #2

Billy Jack Goes To Washington...wow...terrible film.  Totally unnecessary remake.  Badly written.  Badly acted.  Badly Directed.  Totally ruined by having Billy Jack in the James Stewart part.

As to the Psycho remake...I think it was because it too was unnecessary to remake it, They used essentially the same script / dialog which fit for the 1960s but not in "modern" times.  Casting sucked.  Direction sucked.  Music was good...Oh, wait, just a reworked version of Herrmann's score.

It just didn't work trying to copy the Hitchcock film in modern times.  If it had been remade with updated dialog, creepier direction (like, say, Silence Of The Lambs), better actors, etc, etc...could have been a good film.  But to just try to replicate the original...didn't work at all.
Quote
Like
Share

Rick
Member
Joined: 2:22 PM - Dec 22, 2004

12:32 AM - Jun 14, 2018 #3

I think the problem with the PSYCHO remake was not just that it was unnecessary, which it most certainly was, but that it's such a head scratcher. Why on earth was it made?

This wasn't a case of some studio or some director looking to make a quick buck. This was Gus Van Sant's baby all the way and he is a very smart, very talented director. He surely had something in mind which made sense to him.

I don't hate it, I don't hate the cast, or the director, or anything about it. I just don't get it.

If I was to name a truly despicable remake it would be THE HAUNTING, first and foremost. That is a lousy movie, remaking a great one.
“I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.”
~ Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul
Quote
Like
Share

setham
Member
setham
Member
Joined: 8:48 PM - Sep 19, 2015

10:56 PM - Jun 14, 2018 #4

The Gus Van Sant PSYCHO remake, which I saw in the theaters, struck me as being the kind of idea someone would get while stoned out of their minds at 3 AM. In that context, the idea (remaking a movie shot for shot, scene for scene, word for word) might seem profound. In the morning, if the person remembered the idea at all, they'd probably laugh: "What was I thinking?" In Van Sant's case, he wasn't able to have that moment of gravity. We all suffered as a consequence.
Quote
Like
Share

bigcatrik
Member
Joined: 1:20 AM - Apr 07, 2014

2:04 AM - Jun 15, 2018 #5

As a rabid Hitchcock aficionado (particularly while earning my Radio/TV/Film degree!) I saw it opening weekend in a theater out of curiosity and it seemed like a missed opportunity more than anything else. Brian De Palma's "homages" to Hitchcock come off as better experiments, though not without issues of their own. But at least De Palma tried to update whatever he borrowed to the sensibility of the contemporary time period rather than let it tie his hands.

"Technique is nothing more than failed style." Cecil B. DeMented

I've never been much into Gus Van Sant's style (or whatever), anyway.
Quote
Like
Share

Joe Stemme
Member
Joined: 6:38 PM - Jul 16, 2013

12:06 AM - Jun 22, 2018 #6

First, I am a pretty big Gus Van Sant fan. But, yeah, this was one cockamamie idea. It's essentially an Art School project - remake a classic movie without changing a single line, and do it shot for shot (except for the cow in the road cutaway - was Van Sant testing the viewer to see if they were paying attention? Still awake?!!).

So, from Van Sant's POV, I kind of get it - but, that a major studio would spend $60M on what is essentially a home movie is Insane! SIXTY-MILLION DOLLARS (which translates into some $93M today)!!!

And, for all that, it actually made less money than the orginal, even not factoring in for 38 years of Inflation!! Note: Hitchcock's version made almost $400M adjusted.
Quote
Like
Share

papyrusbeetle
Member
Joined: 6:31 PM - Mar 29, 2017

4:46 PM - Jul 10, 2018 #7

PSYCHO re-make in color-
not really needed, but the COMMENTARY TRACK is fascinating, because the
actors all discuss the details of their art.
They seem kind of "fluffy" people, but they are quite astute IRL.
MV5BY2ZlMzMxNzAtODU3Ny00NzE3LTg2YzgtZmNjOWRkYjk3NzViXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTIzOTk5ODM@__V1_.jpg
"I don't want to die."
"Neither do I, baby, but if I have to, I'm going to die last." -OUT OF THE PAST
Quote
Like
Share

blufeld
Member
Joined: 4:34 PM - Mar 21, 2017

11:46 AM - Jul 11, 2018 #8

Joe Stemme wrote: First, I am a pretty big Gus Van Sant fan. But, yeah, this was one cockamamie idea. It's essentially an Art School project - remake a classic movie without changing a single line, and do it shot for shot (except for the cow in the road cutaway - was Van Sant testing the viewer to see if they were paying attention? Still awake?!!).

So, from Van Sant's POV, I kind of get it - but, that a major studio would spend $60M on what is essentially a home movie is Insane! SIXTY-MILLION DOLLARS (which translates into some $93M today)!!!

And, for all that, it actually made less money than the orginal, even not factoring in for 38 years of Inflation!! Note: Hitchcock's version made almost $400M adjusted.
You can build a man with that much moolah.  "We can do it, we have the technology to do it!'
Quote
Like
Share