Psycho 1960 Vs. Psycho 1998?

Question

If Gus Van Sant remade the film using the exact same shots Hitchcock used and its basically the same movie, with the same soundtrack and all.... they why the heck the crappy reviews?

Is it the color?

Is it Vince Vaughn?

Id say its Vince Vaughn but there must be a more solid reason

Answer 1

It's just because people think Hitchcock is untouchable, so when someone recreates his movie to honor him they just assume it was a shot to one-up the guy and they hate it.

I personally thought the update was much better than the original.

Answer 2

I think the colorization did have something to do with it. The original was terrific in its use of dark and light, shadows, and mood set by the fantastic black and white photography.

I do also think that the movie was soundly criticized was that it was so completely unnecessary.  The original was a widely seen classic, and their was no reason for it to be remade. The acting was sub par too, despite that it had great actors in it (Vaughn, Julianne Moore, William H Macy, Viggo Mortensen), but I think both Vaughn and Anne Heche were horribly miscast in their respective roles. Anthony Perkins was much creepier and subdued, while Janet Leigh was much more subdued and nervy in the original. The cast did not mesh very well together which contributed to the lack of chemistry between them on screen.

Gus Van Sant, a terrific director normally, added pointless elements to the film (the on screen masturabtion scene rather than just hinting at it like Hitchcock did, a shot of Viggo's butt in the opening scene, more violent shower scene, longer more explanatory ending scene, and other such simple directional decisions) that added nothing to the film and perhaps distracted the viewer from the original story and tone, which was not a good thing.

So overall, both the actors (who were nearly all miscast) and the director try to add unnecessary elements to distinguish itself from the original. Not a good decision on their part.

The film is definitely not plagarism, thats just dumb to say. The film is not a traditional remake either, as you say it is a near shot-for-shot remake with the same exact storyline and characters. Gus Van Sant did the film more as an homage to Hitchcock and the original, but even as that, is was unecessary. Its more of study of filmmaking techniques than a direct remake.

Answer 3

I think that no matter what movie you remake it will end up sucking, People need to stop doing remakes! I preffered the original, I actualy fell asleep during the 1998 version. To me now adays it seems like more movies are taking it too far with the s*x and violence, too much gets out of controll

Answer 4

Because plagiarism doesn't deserve good reviews.

Neither does being too lazy to do your own film without copying exactly someone else's work.

Answer 5

1960! Its a classic, has nothing to do with color/noncolor you can't re-do such a classic and expect it to do well.

Answer 6

No actually.....  While I'm not a huge Vince Vaughn fan,  I think he put in a pretty decent performance.  I just think that the direction wasn't up to par, and that the rest of the cast didn't do that great a job.  I mean,  nothing was actually horrible about it,  but it just didn't live up to the original.  Anytime a remake doesn't live up to an original,  it's always going to get a bad review.    Bottom line......  Vince was the best part of this movie,  but he didn't live up to Anthony Perkins' portrayal,  and the rest of the cast was much worse (especially Anne Heche).  That, and the direction wasn't as good..... sure you can use the same shots,  but if you suck,  it doesn't matter how great the shots are.

Answer 7

Film purists don't like remakes. I have them both and think the remake was great. The adaptations (prices $$ amounts) kept it current. The classic B/W was better simply because it was the original.

I never under the critics and reviewers..

Answer 8

I would also add another reason...Anne Heche.

Tony Perkins truly creepy and Janet Leigh a true beauty.