Metascore
47

Mixed or average reviews - based on 23 Critics

Critic 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. William H. Macy is fine as the detective Arbogast, wearing a hat he could have borrowed from Martin Balsam in the original role.
  3. 75
    The film is shot in color and includes an amped-up Danny Elfman version of Bernard Herrmann's haunting score.
  4. May not be anything new, but it's still just as shocking.
  5. Reviewed by: M. V. Moorhead
    70
    Funny and sort of creepy--a not bad little thriller with some peculiarly dated plot development.
  6. It remains the most structurally elegant and sneakily playful of thrillers. At least some things never change.
  7. Reviewed by: David Kehr
    63
    Cold, dull, lifeless. [5 December 1998, p.3]
  8. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    63
    Untantalizingly reverent remake. [7 December 1998, p.4D]
  9. Reviewed by: Godfrey Cheshire
    60
    A faithful-unto-slavish remake of the 1960 Hitchcock classic, pic contains nothing to outrage or offend partisans of the original, yet neither does it stand to add much to their appreciation.
  10. Reviewed by: Ken Marks
    60
    If the original did not exist, would this picture be worth seeing?
  11. It's so slavishly similar to its predecessor - right down to the symbolic lettering on Marion's license plates - that there's little to spark fresh discussion except the acting.
  12. 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.
  13. 50
    Van Sant's film feels as dated as Hitchcock's, and Hitchcock's has the better excuse.
  14. Reviewed by: Ron Wells
    50
    The movie doesn't stink. The performances are good, potentially great, especially Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates.
  15. As Norman Bates, Vince Vaughn makes us better appreciate how much Anthony Perkins brought to the original project. It's clear now that he owned the role and that he shares equally with Hitchcock the credit for making Psycho the memorable creep show it is -- and was.
  16. This Psycho seems a little nuts.
  17. Reviewed by: Jeff Dawson
    40
    The thrill of the original is seeing a black-and-white, one-foot-on-the-floor, no-sex-please Hays Code world suddenly explode into a slasher movie. Our loss of innocence has, simply, changed all the rules.
  18. 40
    Hitchcock's Psycho had a lot more than watchability going for it. Van Sant's film impresses only on the level of a cinematic parlor trick, and while that makes it an interesting curiosity, the world doesn't need it.
  19. 40
    The response for anyone familiar with the original Psycho is likely to be restricted to a narrow range between briefly enjoyable déjà vu and mild disappointment. The movie lacks the chutzpah to even be a travesty.
  20. 38
    The movie is an invaluable experiment in the theory of cinema, because it demonstrates that a shot-by-shot remake is pointless; genius apparently resides between or beneath the shots, or in chemistry that cannot be timed or counted.
  21. 38
    Redundant and unnecessary.
  22. 30
    Anne Heche is just another neo-noir minx on the make, while Vince Vaughn, grinning and leering as Norman Bates, sinks the movie.
  23. Van Sant's doomed and misguided experiment.
User Score
3.9

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 32 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 9
  2. Negative: 6 out of 9
  1. Aug 8, 2013
    8
    Esta pelicula me gusto, me parecio una buena pelicula de suspenso, nunca vi la cinta original pero igual me gusto esta pelicula; esta eplicula vale la pena verla. Full Review »
  2. Jul 14, 2013
    1
    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! Full Review »
  3. Apr 17, 2013
    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. Full Review »