MovieChat Forums > Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990) Discussion > PSYCHO IV THE WORST OF THE LOT

PSYCHO IV THE WORST OF THE LOT

posted 17 years ago by HammTate
30 replies | jump to latest

I am a big fan of the original, and I thought that the sequel (Psycho 2) was an original follow up. Interestingly the book sequel 'Psycho 2' written by Robert Bloch is totally different from the film. I realise that script writers probably wrote this, but I wonder why no elements from Bloch's novel were used. Psycho 3 started to pander to the slasher generation, and lost its ori'ginality, however, still dished up some chilling moments. In my opinion the worst of the lot was the fourth instalment. I cannot believe that Stefano wrote it, after the brilliant screenplay he penned for the original. Psycho IV couuld have been so much better. Norman should have escaped, and could have made a couple of attacks at the original house and then he should have moved to a new town, where it all started again; with bits of his past being revealed (as in the film). For me the ending of Psycho IV was the biggest let down of all. A hackneyed plot and totally unbelievable.

ALSO Olivia Hussey was totally miscast as Norma Bates. Although a fine actress, she was totally wrong for this part. Her accent and general characterisation did not fit in well the image that I had in my head after reading the book and seeing the other films. To balance things, I feel that Henry Thomas was a great choice to play the young Norman.

[–] arkast 9 years ago

Agreed. Psycho 2 had an interesting premise and actually made Norman quite sympathetic. Also it had suspense and kept you interested to see who actually was the bad guy, you couldn't be sure even if Norman killed anyone.

Psycho 3 was a little worse than the second film, but it was well directed with some good scenes. A decent horror 80's film. Also it further developed Bates' character the way it should. Holding back just enough to keep things interesting.

Psycho 4 on the other hand, doesn't add anything to the series. The exposition via flashbacks during Norman's call to a radio station is absurd for me. Also there is nothing suspenseful or interesting here. Also what's with the prequel/sequel approach. It doesn't work. Also instead of Anthony Perkins you get a kid who has the same face throughout the film.
Not counting the plot holes of the 4th film such as: How the hell he got out in 4 years? Are you serious? Why his psychiatrist want to marry him and fell in love with him? No character for her whatsoever i guess. It just happened. That's really terrible writing.

[–] Mightygill 9 years ago

I pretty much agree with arkast above. I think Psycho II is better than most wanna give it credit for and the third one is just a slight step below it. For this one, as mentioned above, at this point I just struggle to get over how he's knowingly killed many people yet this woman has married him and how he's somehow free again despite all he's done. I don't understand how people dislike the second and third for it's slasher tropes but can somehow let the silliness of the fourth pass

Check out my blog www.mghorrorshow.blogspot.ca

[–] arkast 9 years ago

Yeap.
O think the third also had a better closure for Norman's character than the cliched and sappy fourth ones.
The biggest problem of the fourth movie (putting aside logical mistakes like: how is he out after only 4 years? Why his doctor married him) is that it doesn't have any characters. Think about it. His wife is characterless, the interviewer is too, even Norman is empty. He doesn't fit his previous films personalities. He is just lost, but not conflicted between right and wrong or between his personality disorder. He is just not existent.