1. CooterPatooter

   1

   Roger Ebert said it perfectly. When your shot-for-shot remake turns out to have zero of the intensity of the original, it serves as excellent proof that **** sense of timing and atmosphere simply cannot be duplicated. Totally pointless and completely forgettable. Watch the original.… Expand

   • Helpful? 0 of 0 users said Yes.
2. cameronmorewood

   0

   A pointless, flat remake that is downright offensive to fans of the original masterpiece.

   • Helpful? 0 of 0 users said Yes.
3. MarkMusic

   0

   Neither the original nor this remake are scary at all you would have to be younger then 10 to find this scary. If my 12 year old cousin and 6 year old cousin didnt jump once then the film isn't scary.… Expand

   • Helpful? 0 of 0 users said Yes.
4. mbeckford

   0

   Horror fans really should thank Gus Van Sant for his experimental "copy exactly" approach to re-making the horror classic Psycho. Just modernizing the original with a bigger budget takes no creativity and falls into the tedium and redundancy which most horror fan's hate.
   
   Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake, where nearly every scene is "copied exactly," is a perfect example of this. It was simply BORING. Even for those that never saw this first, the pacing is just too slow for the high-octane generations of the 90's and beyond.
   
   For a re-make to resonate with an audience that knows the original by heart, it has to deliver a new and different version while staying within the bounds of the original framework. We should be thankful because no director will try this again. For the secret formula to successful horror re-makes, watch 2012's The Evil Dead, 2004's Dawn of the Dead or David Cronenberg's The Fly (1986).… Expand

   • Helpful? 0 of 0 users said Yes.

See all 7 User Reviews