Post by The Curmudgeon on Apr 8, 2007 18:30:32 GMT 2
Well, this IS a first...
It's not often The Curmudgeon is at a loss for words. But I am today, loyal readers, because I just can't sum up Gus Van Sant's remake other than this - it's utterly, utterly POINTLESS.
Not terrible, not bad, not good - just.. pointless. I have no real problem with remakes, if they're done well (although we are seeing a depressing lot of them these days), but they've got to be different, otherwise what's the point? I can understand the notion of NOT changing it, not wanting to tamper with the source material (especially as something as flawless as Psycho) but then - why bother? And that's the problem here.
Gus has used almost every shot Hitchcock used, so basically you're watching the same movie but in colour - and a really crap Norman Bates. With Anthony Perkins, even in the sequels which, although lacking, still had his beyond creepy persona, there was just that hint of something wrong.. a smile too many, a nervous twitch here and there that made you KNOW something awful was going to happen. With Vince Vaughn's he's nowhere near as compelling a Bates as Perkins was.
What else to say? There's a few new shots thrown in to show today's attitudes (in short - Norman Bates plays with himself while watching Anne Heche get undressed... well, it takes all sorts, I suppose) and, uh.. that's it.
Most unforgivable part? The ending (which, if you don't know it, look away now - oh, too late), when Norman bursts in the room in the original Psycho dressed as his mother, knife in the air, HORRIBLE expression on his face, lighbulb swinging wildly across the room, it's a terryfying rush of fear and "what the f**k" that has never been equalled. In this version, Vince Vaughn minces in like he's Dr Frankenfurter from the Rocky Horror Picture Show.
So there you have it - not a terrible movie, because he copied one of the best ever made. Just a huge waste of talent, time and camera film. PLEASE stick with the original.
