X
- 1986
- R
- Universal Pictures
- 1 h 33 m
- 1986
- R
- Universal Pictures
- 1 h 33 m
Summary Norman Bates falls in love with a fallen nun who stays at the Bates Motel alongside a drifter and a curious reporter. Meanwhile, "mother" is still watching.
Directed By: Anthony Perkins
Written By: Charles Edward Pogue, Robert Bloch
- 1986
- R
- Universal Pictures
- 1 h 33 m
- 1986
- R
- Universal Pictures
- 1 h 33 m
Psycho III
58
4.8
Where to Watch
Summary Norman Bates falls in love with a fallen nun who stays at the Bates Motel alongside a drifter and a curious reporter. Meanwhile, "mother" is still watching.
Directed By: Anthony Perkins
Written By: Charles Edward Pogue, Robert Bloch
Where to Watch
Top Cast
Metascore
Mixed or Average
Based on 13 Critic Reviews
58
54% Positive
7 Reviews
7 Reviews
38% Mixed
5 Reviews
5 Reviews
8% Negative
1 Review
1 Review
Metascore
Mixed or Average
Based on 13 Critic Reviews
58
54% Positive
7 Reviews
7 Reviews
38% Mixed
5 Reviews
5 Reviews
8% Negative
1 Review
1 Review
Psycho III, directed by Perkins himself, is years behind the Hitchcock original in quality, it's light years ahead of Psycho II. [27 June 1986, p.D1]
A playful, artfully made horror movie that shows there's life in Norman Bates yet, and death, too. [04 July 1986, p.C1]
User Score
Mixed or Average
Based on 24 User Ratings
4.8
29% Positive
7 Ratings
7 Ratings
33% Mixed
8 Ratings
8 Ratings
38% Negative
9 Ratings
9 Ratings
User Score
Mixed or Average
Based on 24 User Ratings
4.8
29% Positive
7 Ratings
7 Ratings
33% Mixed
8 Ratings
8 Ratings
38% Negative
9 Ratings
9 Ratings
I think this movie is entertaining. Definitely not as good as the first two, but this one feels much more like an 80s slasher film as opposed to the first two.
Report
The movie was directed by Perkins, in his filmmaking debut. I was surprised by what a good job he does. Any movie named Psycho III is going to be compared to the Hitchcock original, but Perkins isn't an imitator. He has his own agenda.
Psycho III is still a comedie macabre -- as was Hitchcock's -- but Perkins doesn't follow the Psycho path. Where the master trod subtly, the disciple relies on emphasis. [03 July 1986, p.D11]
Psycho III--better in most respects than II--lets you down with the same swampy thud at the end. It's not a catastrophe. It has some good writing, and some better-than-good acting (Perkins, Diana Scarwid, Jeff Fahey), directing (Perkins again) and camera work (Bruce Surtees). But it fails any sequel's acid test: It feeds off the original without deepening it.
Perkins tries to imitate Hitchcock's visual style, but most of the film is made without concern for style of any kind, unless it's the bludgeoning nonstyle of Friday the 13th.
The real trouble with Psycho III is that it's one sequel too many. Norman and his Gothic manse have already been drained of creative resources. [03 July 1986, p.A]
What a weird experience this movie was, it wasn’t even a Psycho film really (more inspired by the Italian horror films of the time to be honest). Very little enjoyment came out of this bad boy, the best part as always is Anthony Perkins portrayal of Norman Bates but still, not a fun one.
3/10 Jay x
Report
Easily one of the worst third movies I've ever seen. It's down there with Jaws 3, Highlander III, Superman III, and VHS: Viral. Psycho III has a lackluster storyline with crappy characters and a poorly written romance. I guess the only positive thing I have for this movie is Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates. he was terrific as Norman even though the movie around him was crumbling apart.
Report
