Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990)

Although I put it off for many years, and didn’t hear anything from people who might want me to prioritise this as a viewing option, I decided to finally watch the last of the films that make up the original Psycho film series. Considering the obvious diminishing returns of each instalment, although that is not to dismiss the greatness of the second film, I hoped that this would still provide me with some fun.

Listening to a radio show, about killers who have committed matricide, hosted by Fran Ambrose (CCH Pounder), Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins once again) decides to call in and share his own informed viewpoint. He doesn’t agree with the views expressed by one of the guests (Dr. Leo Richmond, played by Warren Frost), and decides to give listeners the benefit of his life story. This allows us to then see a young Norman (Henry Thomas) living with his mother (Olivia Hussey).

Written by Joseph Stefano, this is a largely disappointing finale for a very unlikely film series. I am not sure that any of us really wanted to see Norman’s childhood (not until they found a better way to do it anyway, with the Bates Motel TV show) and the third act tries to add suspense and twists that fall completely flat. Having said that, it still partially succeeds as an ending for the character of Norman, giving him a closure that feels deserved, for both himself and fans of the series.

Director Mick Garris doesn’t do anything great, although he’s slightly hampered by a script that feels very comfortably within the TV movie parameters it was given. Things feel as if they are being marked off a checklist, from character details to shot choices, but there’s some fun to be had as viewers watch the important moments that turned Norman into what he is/was.

Perkins is very good once again in the main role, but he’s consigned to a supporting role in his own story, setting the scene for the other main players. Thomas and Hussey do well enough, although both are a bit over the top at times, and the focus is on familiar references and touch points ahead of natural and realistic characterizations. Pounder is perfectly fine as the DJ, Frost doesn’t get to do much (seemingly only there to have a character similarly named to someone else from the very first film), and Donna Mitchell plays someone pivotal to the whole plot, but also disappointingly undeveloped. Maybe giving her a bit more material instead of making time for a John Landis cameo could have helped things slightly, but what do I know?

I can’t say I hated this though. It was a bit of a chore at times, and some moments came close to being laughably bad, but I was ultimately won over by a cast all trying hard with very uneven material. I might never rush to rewatch this, but I am glad I finally got around to it. There’s an inevitable sense of satisfaction after joining Norman for the full journey.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Mubi Monday: Psycho (1998)

Well, I guess I owe an apology to quite a few people. I used to spend some of my time online defending this ill-advised remake of the Hitchcock classic. This recent revisit, the first time I have watched the film since I caught it on a rental VHS copy, quickly had me reconsidering my view. So many elements are awful. And yet... yet... there is still something here that leaves it ad a fascinating experiment. Not a satisfying movie, and not a remake that comes anywhere close to the original, but something worth viewing as a way to strengthen the case of how many different elements come together to make a movie a timeless classic.

You know the story, basically. Unless you don't. If you don't, I am not going to spoil any potential twists and turns, even if you've seen the original film. Anne Heche is Marion Crane this time around, a woman who is left in charge of a large sum of money by her boss and, in a moment of madness, heads off to use the money as a chance to start a better life with her boyfriend (Viggo Mortensen). Tired from the drive, but so close to her destination, Marion pulls in to get a room for the night at the Bates Motel, where she meets Norman (Vince Vaughn). He seems like a nice young man, in stark contrast to his angry mother.

Based on the exact same shooting script as the 1960 original, written by Joseph Stefano, and with many shots replicated as closely as possible to the way Hitchcock already did them, it's understandable that many people cite this as an example of a remake that is completely pointless. I was tempted to think the same thing as the end credits rolled this time around.

And yet . . . there's definitely a lot to be gained from viewing this as an academic exercise. Director Gus Van Sant knows how pointless it is to try and remake such an acclaimed masterpiece, and he makes a great effort to highlight the futility of the exercise. Before you even see one bit of the performances on display, just watching the opening credits is enough to put you off. They're exactly the same as the original credits. They're just now in colour. Seconds into the film and it's already not as good, the colour seems to serve as a final flag raised up before the viewer. "You were warned," it seems to say, "and now the reality of the situation is here in front of your eyes." This continues throughout the entire movie. Even the moments that are staged as best as they can be (the sequence between Marion Crane and a highway patrolman, this time played by James Remar) just don't ever feel as good because, well, they're just not.

It's a shame that the cast don't do better though, even if they were given a thankless task. Heche is hard to warm to in the role of Marion, and Mortensen gives one of his worst performances as her beau. Vaughn is given the biggest shoes to fill, and I still find a lot to admire in his performance. It doesn't work, his laugh is too jarring and his quick-talking manner feels unlike the Norman Bates we're used to, but I still appreciate the way that he tries to make himself seem smaller and a bit more timid than he seems in most of his other roles. Julianne Moore, as much as I like her, is quite awful as Marion's sister, not helped by the pointless addition of headphones she is given to wear (as if the character was written to be some spirited, resourceful teen), but William H. Macy at least manages to make up for her presence in the second half of the film, easily outshining both her and Mortensen in his scenes as the detective, Arbogast.

And yet . . . there's STILL something here. Something in the heart of the story, something that pulls you towards it, even as the performances and the new colour scheme put you off. Van Sant knows this, he knows that YOU know it, and your growing appreciation for the original movie in direct correlation to your anger at the audacity of this remake just goes to prove the point that he decided to make when he took on this project.

4/10

You can buy the movie here, if you really want to.
Americans can buy it here.

Mubi Monday: Psycho (1960)

What is the point in even attempting to write a review of Psycho nowadays? People have said everything there is to be said about it, right? It's had a remake that was almost shot for shot, it has featured in movies made about director Alfred Hitchcock, and that classic shower scene has even been dissected in a documentary all on its own (78/52, which refers to the number of shots and cuts, respectively).

And yet . . . it's that feeling that everyone has seen the film, that everything to be said about it HAS been said, that makes me feel it is still worth writing a whole review. Because most of us know Psycho, and know it well, but I would wager that few remember just how great a number of the elements are, especially when you are asked to pick favourites from the outstanding filmography of Hitchcock.

It seems pointless to summarise the plot, and pointless to try and avoid spoilers. So let me roll my sleeves up and attempt to do two pointless things at once. Janet Leigh is Marion Crane, a woman we first see making herself look respectable again after a tryst with her lover (John Gavin) in a hotel room. They are not married, he stays quite a distance away and has very little money, but they do seem to love one another. The whole situation, and an encounter with a customer at her work who seems intent on being as vulgar about his wealth as possible, leads Marion to seize an opportunity when her boss asks her to take a large sum of money to the bank. She leaves town, money in her possession, and sets out to join her lover. It's a long journey, however, and she decides to stop at the isolated Bates Motel, which seems suited to the low profile she is keeping on her travels. And the young man in charge of the place (Norman, played by Anthony Perkins) is very pleasant and accommodating. He seems to take a liking to Marion, but his mother most certainly doesn't.

Everybody remembers bits of Psycho. They remember the shower scene (it's unforgettable, a masterclass in editing and audio-visual synchronicity), they remember the Bernard Herrmann score, they remember the twists and jumps. They even remember how good Perkins is in his main role. They also often remember enjoying Martin Balsam (he plays a detective who ends up trying to track down Marion Crane). Some people also remember that Janet Leigh is quite good in her role, despite being overshadowed by Perkins.

Yet very few people remember everything all together. I rewatched Psycho with the intention of taking down some notes in preparation for this review, and I soon gave up on that idea. I was hooked from the beginning, and I knew there was better still to come. Leigh isn't just quite good. She's great in her role, perfectly portraying a woman who has one moment of madness and then spends the rest of her time onscreen weighed down by that decision. Perkins still manages to overshadow her, but not deliberately, simply due to him being so absolutely perfect as the nervy and pleasant young man with a dark secret. Balsam comes into the movie at just the right time, a shot of energy before the tension starts to ratchet up again in the finale, and Gavin does a good job in his smaller role, working well alongside Vera Miles (playing the sister to the character played by Leigh).

Hitchcock knows just how far to push things, and how to code the characters very effectively, in ways that work with, and subvert, expectations. There are other films from him that are more complex, that are more thematically interesting, that can be dissected even more than this one, but Psycho is arguably his most effective blend of the macabre and the entertaining. He's helped by the team around him. Hermann giving him that classic score, Joseph Stefano giving him a cracking script adapted from Robert Bloch's source novel, the supporting cast members, the titles from Saul Bass, and every key player who helped to bring his vision to life.

And what more is there to say? Nothing, and everything. There are new film fans created every day, of all ages, and some won't have seen Psycho yet. So I hope this may prompt one of them to do so. I also hope it maybe reminds more seasoned film fans to revisit it, to just remind themselves of how utterly fantastic it is, in every aspect of the craft it took to bring it all together. That is the point in deciding to write a review of the movie, after almost sixty years of it scarring the membrane of public consciousness and becoming a pop culture staple. Or maybe it was just another little moment of madness.

"We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?"

10/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews