It's a bold move to make a direct sequel to one of the greatest horror movies of all-time. It's an even bolder move to use the first moments to show the most famous sequence from the original film. I am not sure how it was initially received, but everyone should now be aware of the fact that Psycho II is a pretty fantastic film, a smart and entertaining psychodrama that is more than worthy of following the flawless original.
It has been over two decades since Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins, reprising his role) was committed to psychiatric care after the grisly discoveries shown in the first movie. He has now been declared sane, which means he is a free man. This upsets Lila Crane Loomis (Vera Miles), also reprising her role from the previous movie, and Lila plans to get Norman sent back to prison as soon as possible. But Norman may have an ally, in the shape of the lovely Mary (Meg Tilly), even if Mary may also be manipulating Norman at times.
Although not quite on a par with his portrayal of the character in the first movie, being over 20 years older naturally removes some of the vulnerability and seeming innocence of Norman, Perkins is once again a captivating screen presence. Despite his past, viewers know that he's not necessarily bad, or evil. He's sick. And, compared to those around him who want to make him sicker, or want to take advantage of him, he's often sweet and well-intentioned.
Tilly is the heart of the film, Mary is a young woman with a way about her that makes it easy to believe Norman would fall for her, and want to believe the best about her. And Miles is fantastic, playing a relentless woman who wants justice, no matter how far she has to go to get it. Robert Loggia is also very good, playing the doctor who is trying to help Norman, Dennis Franz adds another sweaty douchebag role to his filmography, and Hugh Gillin returns to the role of Sheriff Hunt.
Director Richard Franklin doesn't overdo things, in terms of style and technical flourishes, he seems very much aware of the fact that the film relies on the brand name, the main character, and the script, from Tom Holland. Speaking of the script, it's a fantastic concoction of reworked moments from the original film, twists and turns involving the new characters, and a beautifully-crafted narrative that uses Norman, and his struggles with sanity, in a way that allows everything to move along on an intriguing journey that never betrays the essence of the central character.
There are some minor issues. It often feels a bit flat, more akin to a TV movie than a cinematic release, and it's a shame that the rest of the movie doesn't manage quite the same level of dark humour and playfulness that is packed into the superb third act. Those quibbles aside, however, Psycho II holds up as one of the best sequels ever. Nothing was really going to equal the first film, but this comes surprisingly close.
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
Well, not many of these left (sadly) but I'll keep going as long as Filmstruck is around.
Here's the cinematic journey I made when it came to Western movies, and I am going to boldly assume that a similar experience was had by many people of my age. I first saw Westerns as dull films, schedule-fillers put on at the weekend, after the fun of the programming aimed at kids and before any big sport shows. I'd sometimes be taken along to visit my grandparents, knowing that my grandfather was going to be more interested in how his horses got on for most of the afternoon, and there was often a Western movie on in the background as I tried to keep boredom at bay. The adults were all catching up, it was never a guarantee that any other kids would be there at the same time as I was, and all I seemed to see were the same barren, rocky landscapes, the same bland heroes shooting at some savage villains, and some good stunts on horseback. It's this experience that kept me away from Westerns for many years, even as I started to properly delve into all that cinema had to offer. The Western was the genre I enjoyed the least. Then I discovered Spaghetti Westerns, and the filmography of Clint Eastwood, and even the wonderful mix of romanticism and realism offered up by Kevin Costner (say what you like about his work, the man can craft a Western like a tanner crafts the finest leather goods). And, finally, I decided to check out those films that I had previously thought too dull, too stuck in the simple and old-fashioned roots of the genre. Yes, some of them still feel that way. But the ones that are still praised by fans so many decades later tend to, like enduring classics of any genre, hold up really well. The Searchers is one of them.
John Wayne stars as Ethan Edwards, a man who ends up spending a number of years on the trail of his niece, who was kidnapped by Comanches during a violent raid. He is accompanied on this journey by Martin (Jeffrey Hunter), the adopted brother of Ethan's niece who is also one eighth Cherokee, to the displeasure of Ethan. As they move through the country, viewers get served the expected helpings of action, but it all comes with an interesting look at race relations and the very thin line between violent heroism and outright savagery.
Based on a novel by Alan LeMay, The Searchers benefits from a cracking script by Frank S. Nugent that is given due respect by director John Ford. This could have been an easy movie to make a success without adding any complexity to the central plot strand, and I didn't expect all that I had to chew on as the movie ended, but Nugent and Ford balance things perfectly, right up to an ending so perfect that it quite rightly sits up there, I believe, alongside the greatest endings in cinema. You can spend years dissecting and discussing the portrayal, and misrepresentation, of Native Americans onscreen throughout the history of cinema, and this film doesn't avoid many of the common complaints you can level at 95% of Westerns, but Nugent and Ford spend a lot of time here showing Edwards up as being just as, if not more so, monstrous and bloodthirsty as the enemy he is pursuing. And it's not just Edwards. There are quite a few others who come along to show that savagery and immorality are not traits to be given to one section of society. In fact, there's an argument to be made that, for the most part, the Native Americans align themselves to a moral code more rigidly than a number of the standard white cowboys.
The more I see of John Wayne, after so many years avoiding him under the misapprehension that I would hate all of the movies he starred in, the more I like him. I am well aware of his personal views, which makes it all the more interesting to see him give such a well-rounded, and well-shaded, performance. He's the staunch hero here, apart from the times when he isn't. He's the guy who, in modern cinematic terms, knows that he has to get his hands dirty to get the job done. But he also would rather, at one point, consider shooting a young woman than see her live as a Comanche. Hunter does well to hold his own alongside "The Duke", he's a centre to the moral compass (or perhaps calling it a moral centrefuge would be better, considering the whirling nature of the main characters). German-born actor Henry Brandon does well as Scar, the Comanche Chief (I did say that it didn't avoid many of the common complaints), Vera Miles is lovely as a young woman waiting for the return of Martin, although a young man named Charlie McCorry (Henry Curtis) wants to win her over, Ward Bond is the authority figure who helps when he can, in a role that would nowadays be the angry Police Captain dealing with the rogue cop who gets results, and Natlie Wood makes a strong impression, despite being in the film for maybe a total of 5 minutes, tops.
I wasn't sure if I could overlook the negatives to rate this as a perect movie. The passage of time doesn't always feel that well done, it's tough at times to figure out why Wayne's character is so determined to set out on whatever course he chooses in reaction to certain events, and you have those problematic elements inherent in many films from this time. But those negatives are far too minor to dissuade me. The passage of time could have been better, sure, but that's about it, really. I liked not always understanding Wayne's character, sometimes admiring his steadfast way and sometimes loathing him. And as for the use of Brandon, and the portrayal of the Native Americans here, you always have to view cinema in context. In the context of the time, this still does a hell of a lot that you wouldn't expect.
It's no small irony that anyone asking me a decade ago if I would ever give a 10/10 rating to a John Wayne film would have heard the phrase so oft-repeated in this very film - "that'll be the day."
Yet here we are.
10/10
You can search out The Searchershere.
Americans can get it here.
Or just click on those links and buy everything you want.
