Movie Review: Psycho (1960)

Stars: 3 out of 5

Pros: Great acting; decent story

Cons: Scares don't stand up that well to time

The Bottom Line: 

Important for the time

But not the timeless classic

People claim it is

"Do You Have Any Vacancies?"  "Oh, We Have Twelve Vacancies."

Psycho was the first Hitchcock film I ever watched.  At the time, I wasn't really that impressed.  That was roughly 10 years ago, and I have since come to enjoy several of Hitchcock's films.  I figured it was time to give Psycho a second chance.

The movie opens in December in Phoenix, Arizona.  Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) is enjoying a long lunch at a hotel with her out of town boyfriend Sam Loomis (John Gavin).  When she returns to work, she is given $40,000 and told to take it to the bank.  Instead, she goes home, packs, and flees town.

After a couple of days on the run, Marion stops at the Bates Motel where she meets the lonely but nice seeming manager Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins).  But all is not as it seems at the hotel.  What will happen next?

This movie is touted as a horror film, and many people call it the scariest movie of all time.  I can certainly understand why audiences of 50 years ago would be scared by it.  I don't find it that scary, however.  Part of that is because the scares rely on shocks and surprises.  At this point, the movie is so well known that it would be hard to watch it without knowing them.  They are so much a part of pop culture that we hear about them from such places as Murder, She Wrote and Happy Days.

So what are we left with if we know the outcome?  There's still a decent story here.  When I watched the movie a second time, I was entertained by it.  However, the pacing is way off.  The beginning seems slow, although I get that since we want to build sympathy for the characters.  Still, the pacing again suffers in the middle of the film.  Frankly, I'm not sure how to go about increasing the pace since you need all the pieces to build to the climax.  It's a decent mystery story, but it's not that horrifying.  Well, until we get to the final scenes which are very preachy psychology, especially for those used to hearing stuff like this today.

Now that isn't to take away from the most famous scenes.  They are well known for a reason.  While I think Hitchcock has done better with pulse pounding scenes elsewhere, the scenes here do have their merit for how well they were shot if nothing else.  They are very well done for what they imply as well as what they show.

And I'm not going to fault the acting.  John Gavin is often maligned for his acting as the boyfriend here, but I think he's fine.  Likewise, Janet Leigh manages to make us care about Marion even after she's stolen the money.  But it is Anthony Perkins who absolutely shines as Norman.  His performance alone is worth watching this movie to see.

Even though the film was released in 1960, Hitchcock chose to make it in Black and White.  Frankly, that isn't an issue for me.

Try as I might, I can't quite put myself back in 1960 enough to view this film as the original audience saw it.  I get that at the time it was shocking and scary.  But that was 50 years ago.  Other films Hitchcock has made stand the test of time better and still pack enough suspense to make your heart race no matter how many times you've seen them.

I just hope you don't think this contrary opinion makes me Psycho.