Mixed or average reviews - based on 23 Critics What's this?

User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 36 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: ,
  • Summary: Intrigued by the notion of taking an intact, undeniable classic and seeing what would happen if it were made again - with a nearly identical shooting script - but with contemporary filmmaking techniques, Gus Van Sant recreates the motion picture Psycho. (Universal Studios)
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 23
  2. Negative: 4 out of 23
  1. Norman Bates is alive and well, and just a tad kinkier than you remember him.
  2. 75
    The film is shot in color and includes an amped-up Danny Elfman version of Bernard Herrmann's haunting score.
  3. Reviewed by: M. V. Moorhead
    Funny and sort of creepy--a not bad little thriller with some peculiarly dated plot development.
  4. This Psycho seems a little nuts.
  5. In the shock department, the ante has been upped, way up, and a mere kitchen knife through a shower curtain just doesn't cut it any more.
  6. Reviewed by: Ron Wells
    The movie doesn't stink. The performances are good, potentially great, especially Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates.
  7. Van Sant's doomed and misguided experiment.

See all 23 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 10
  2. Negative: 7 out of 10
  1. May 13, 2014
    I have not seen Alfred Hitchock's Psycho but i need see the remake . the new film describes every detail
    of the original that is good the
    new generation of the film is the darkness of Vince Vaughn and the shower scene which was the best part . The remake was Absolutely the best one i scene and the psycho series was fun too . Expand
  2. Mar 4, 2012
    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
  3. Jul 14, 2013
    First of all this remake was unnecessary, but besides that it was: flat, without suspense, without atmosphere and the good cast was also missing (basically it lacked everything what made the original a great movie, which stood the trial of time). Gus Van Sant is not a bad director but he missed with this one! Not recommended! Expand
  4. May 14, 2012
    Frankly, this experimented shot-for-shot remake is just an insult to the timeless, classic 1960 original version of "Psycho".
  5. Nov 8, 2012
    A pointless, flat remake that is downright offensive to fans of the original masterpiece.
  6. Apr 17, 2013
    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
  7. Apr 7, 2013
    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).

See all 10 User Reviews