Good or Bad?
I've heard both. Which is it?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Believe Narpin and myself, it is deffinetley worth seeing, it is great. And all of the flash back scenes are great, ignore the other person. Highly recommended
[deleted]
It's not great but it's not awful it's just average. You most definatly can not compare it to the original!
shareThis movie is really good...I just watched it again the other night on Univeral HD.
Adam Beck
http://www.MindlessFilms.com
It's not a masterpiece, but it's worth seeing. I loved the flashback scenes, especially the scenes with his mother.
Of course we're living in sin.
Yes, it is worth seeing. I think it might be the best of the sequels (not counting the original Psycho of course, which was by far the best), but it is a good film, especially the scenes with young Norman.
shareBeing a huge fan of the origianl, I find many errors in the script for this film. The screenplay for this was written by the same man who wrote the screenplay for the first film,Joseph Stefano, so the errors are even more unexcusable. If you don't know the first film backward and foreward you might enjoy this film.
shareits definitely a great film, is day its the third best after hitchocks, and psycho 3 (directed by perkins who is obviously the only person who could have done the film justice) and psycho 2 is just so flat i dont like it, theres no imagination or inventiveness in it, the sets look harsh, the musics boring, the script is just a routine who done it, theres no characterstudy or delve into normans mind. psycho 4 is cool, it got me interested in psyco again about 16 years ago when it first came out,plus its just great to see bates motel (and mother!) in all there glory! chet rudolph isnt quite as i imagines normas lover though,but normans drink mixing skills soon sort hin out! :-)
shareit was excellent, especially the flashbacks and John Landis.
the only thing i didn't really like was when they went back to the house.
Definitely worth seeing.
shareI thought it was crap. It had potential to be good, but they dropped the ball on it.
Brandon Routh = The poor mans Christopher Reeve.
What's wrong with it? I thought it had a very interesting plot, and I really liked the idea of the radio show, and the scenes with Henry Thomas were very good. And there's nothing wrong with the plot in the present day, even though a lot of people criticise it for some reason that I really can't understand. Norman's wife was pregnant and he didn't want the child. What's so bad about a plot like that?
When you say it has a potential to be good, how do you think it could it have been better instead of being what it is now?
Excellent film, I remember watching it in 1990 when I was only 10. If you don't understand Psycho I, which some people I have spoken to claim, then you must see Psycho IV. This tells the whole story. It adds in the boyfriend, the weighted coffin, the poisoning that the Doc at the end of Psycho I explains. Basicallly the story the Doc at the end of I tells, is explained in IV.
shareHenry Thomas even resembled the young Norman.
shareI liked it a lot
Here's how I rate all six ''PSYCHO'' movies:
1: Psycho II [1983]
2: Psycho IV The Beginning [1990]
3: Psycho [1960]
4: Psycho III [1986]
5: Psycho [1998]
6: Bates Motel [1987]
Seriously I just want to know how Psycho is number 3? When its clearly a better movie. A masterpiece. I guess we all have different tastes. Nothing wrong with that:)
shareEasily THE BEST of all the Psycho sequels. The script is GREAT, Henry Thomas is PERFECT, Olivia Hussey is surprising and not what you'd expect. Sexy, creepy, twisted, and fun. Good job! It should be on DVD.
share[deleted]
I don't think anyone's ever going to make a Psycho V. I'd love to know what Norman's child is like as well, but I think the sequels would have to end at IV, I'm afraid.
shareI thought this film was a solid and satisfying final entry in the series. The scenes between Norman and his mother were very strong and unsettling. The talk radio show angle was quite interesting, too.
I enjoy keeping busy. Satan finds work for idle hands.