Universal Pictures | Release Date: December 4, 1998
7.9
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 155 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
112
Mixed:
17
Negative:
26
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
aaronpaul121May 14, 2012
Frankly, this experimented shot-for-shot remake is just an insult to the timeless, classic 1960 original version of "Psycho".
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
KadeemluvmusicMay 11, 2014
Boy, even the late Alfred Hitchcock should've laughed this mess of a remake that hard. Psycho is one of my favorite horror movies of all time and what did they get, a nobody director and a wasted script. Hitchcock was right on one thing. HeBoy, even the late Alfred Hitchcock should've laughed this mess of a remake that hard. Psycho is one of my favorite horror movies of all time and what did they get, a nobody director and a wasted script. Hitchcock was right on one thing. He shouldn't need any color. Insult to injury, this shot-by-shot remake is definitely one of the worst remakes Hollywood needs to stay away. It's pretty stupid when you add Anne Heche, Vince Vaughn (as Young Norman Bates), and Gus Van Sant as a director who just doesn't know what the original version is all about. The original version features not only has one of the scariest theme songs of all time, but the shower scene where Bates slashed his wife is very memorable. At least, we desperately need a proper remake. But stick to the Hitchcock classic. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
1
oliver1hJul 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 ofFirst 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
MarkMusicApr 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.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
0
mbeckfordApr 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 redundancyHorror 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
FilmVirtueOct 14, 2014
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 I just can't see acting in a film like this.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
1
CooterPatooterMar 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 andRoger 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
cameronmorewoodNov 8, 2012
A pointless, flat remake that is downright offensive to fans of the original masterpiece.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
TheDude-Jun 13, 2015
A shot for shot remake with awful performances and just has no reason to exist at all
verdict:The exact same film as the original except this version sucks
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews