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
5.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 50 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 12
  2. Negative: 8 out of 12
  1. May 13, 2014
    10
    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
    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 .
    Full Review »
  2. Oct 30, 2014
    4
    Vince Vaughn is so laughable it's his best comedy since "Swingers". This is a pointless remake that is below all other remakes, not only is itVince Vaughn is so laughable it's his best comedy since "Swingers". This is a pointless remake that is below all other remakes, not only is it guilty of being a shot for shot copy of the Hitchcock classic taking no artistic chances with the material to steer in another direction whether or not it's good but i'd rather see that than the exact same movie the came out in the 60's and the directors reasoning for it just irritates me. Full Review »
  3. Oct 14, 2014
    3
    A pointless remake of a movie that should have been left alone in the first place. I'd say It's biggest problem is Mr. Vince Vaughn, who IA pointless remake of a movie that should have been left alone in the first place. I'd say It's biggest problem is Mr. Vince Vaughn, who I just can't see acting in a film like this. Full Review »