User Score
3.9

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 32 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 32
  2. Negative: 17 out of 32

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 14, 2012
    0
    Frankly, this experimented shot-for-shot remake is just an insult to the timeless, classic 1960 original version of "Psycho".
  2. Mar 4, 2012
    1
    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.
  3. 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!
  4. Nov 8, 2012
    0
    A pointless, flat remake that is downright offensive to fans of the original masterpiece.
  5. 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.
  6. Apr 7, 2013
    0
    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).
    Expand
  7. 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.
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. 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.
  2. Reviewed by: Ron Wells
    50
    The movie doesn't stink. The performances are good, potentially great, especially Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates.
  3. 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.