Movie Review: Psycho (1998)

Stars: 1 out of 5

Pros: A few nice color shots; some of the performances

Cons: Vince Vaughn is miscast; time confusion; Walkman?????

The Bottom Line: 

Another remake

Definition of pointless

Few changes are strange

"Sometimes Only One Time Can Be Enough."

As much as they annoy some people, I can understand why Hollywood likes remakes.  It gives people a chance to put a fresh spin on a story people already know and love.  To be honest, there are some remakes out there I enjoy just as much if not more than the original.  It's really no different than seeing a play with a different cast and a different director.

So that's why Gus van Sant's remake of Psycho always seemed odd to me.  It wasn't that he was going to put his own spin on a classic movie.  That would be hard enough.  No, he set out to do a shot for shot remake of the film, only in color this time.  Now, I'm not a big fan of the original, but I was curious enough about the remake to watch it about a week after seeing the original.  It's no improvement and worse in many ways.

The story is exactly the same.  (No surprise there.)  Marion Crane (Anne Heche) gives in to temptation to steal $400,000 from her boss.  But while running away with the money, she pulls off the road at the Bates Motel.  While the manager, Norman Bates (Vince Vaughn) seems to be nice, the motel has a deadly secret.  What might it be?

This film has the same pacing issues that the original does.  We've got long stretches where not much is really happening.  And don't get me started on the epilogue, which is even more pointless today than it was originally.

The color gives the film a nice touch; some of the shots are actually quite beautiful.

As I started watching the film, I had a hard time getting past the acting.  It was like the actors were rushing through their lines so they could be done for the day.  The pace of the scenes was all wrong.  And it felt like they never believed the words they were saying.  Some of the actors got better as the film went along.  Anne Heche became more believable as Marion.  Viggo Mortensen was never believable as her boyfriend Sam, but I did buy Julianne Moore as Lila Crane.

Then there's Vince Vaughn.  Heck, he was the main reason I wanted to watch this film.  He's best known for his comedy films, so I wasn't sure how he'd do as Norman Bates.  (I mentioned to a friend I was planning to watch this movie, and he asked if it was a comedy when I mentioned Vince Vaughn was in it.)  Arguably Norman is the most important character to get right in the whole film.  And Vince Vaughn fails it.  When Norman is supposed to be nervous, Vince plows on ahead.  There's no subtly in his performance at all, and the part screams out for it.  And when he is supposed to chuckle at his own jokes, it is so fake it is annoying.  Yeah, he pretty much ruins the movie single handedly.  Granted, it would be hard to match Anthony Perkins' outstanding performance in the original, but this doesn't even come close.

So now let's talk about the strange choices Gus van Sant made in directing this film.  It clearly says at the beginning that the story is supposed to take place in 1998, but obviously no one got that memo.  The costumes, especially for the women, look like something from the late 60's or early 70's.  The phones range from dial phones to push button.  And no one has a cell phone, although I'm willing to let that slide since that would drastically change the action of some of the scenes.  And if it is supposed to be modern times, why do they use an operator to place a phone call at one point?

Now let's go to the other extreme.  There is a scene late in the movie (I'm not going to spoil anything) where Marion's sister Lila and boyfriend Sam decide to go talk to the sheriff.  Before they leave, Lila says, "Let me grab my walkman."  What??!!  I actually ran that back to make sure I had heard it correctly.  Yes, she really did go grab her walkman.  And in the next scene, she's got her headphones around her neck with a chord going to her backpack.  I was so shocked, I actually pulled out my copy of the original and watched the scene.  Originally, Lila said, "Let me grabby my coat."  Now why change that line?  It's just stupid!

Watching that scene again in the original made me go back and watch several others near there.  And as I did, I discovered that this wasn't the shot for shot remake it claims to be.  In fact, the scene after that one where Sam and Lila are talking to the sheriff has been drastically changed.  And a scene at a church the next morning completely cut.  So, if he was going to make some changes, why not really change things around and truly put his touch on the story?  He should do one or the other and not just be wishy-washy about it.  Of course, there are some famous differences between the two like a line Hitchcock was forced to cut from the original that was put back in and the infamous masturbation scene.

When it comes to pointless remakes, this one completely takes the cake.  Instead of trying to revitalize a classic for a new generation, Gus van Sant just copies the original and then makes ludicrous decisions on telling the story.  The acting can't compare to the original.  As much as I think the original has flaws, it is still so much better than this version.  You'd have to be Psycho to like it.