Psycho II (1983) User Reviews (297)

Surprisingly good

[preppy-3 · 7/10 · 29 May 2001]

Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) is released after over 20 years in an asylum, supposedly cured. He goes back to Bates Motel...but then he starts seeing his dead mother again, gets phone calls from her and the murders start up again. Is it Norman going crazy again or is someone trying to drive him to it?

A very good, intricately plotted sequel to Hitchcock's classic. This could have been a disaster, but it isn't. The plot has many twists and turns and moves quickly. Director Richard Franklin does an excellent directing job, setting up some very eerie shots and duplicating some of Hitchcock's shots from the original. Perkins is just OK (he should have toned down on the twitches) and Meg Tilly is her usual blank self but there is a strong supporting cast including Vera Miles and Robert Loggia. One minor problem--was it necessary to get so violent and bloody at the end (although it's restrained for a 1980s horror film)? Still, worth catching. Great final shot too.

Surprisingly decent follow-up

[Leofwine_draca · 8/10 · 17 August 2014]

Of course, PSYCHO II can't hold a candle to Hitch's original masterwork, but then what film can? The surprise is that it turns out to be a decent little film in itself, purely because it isn't a slavish copy but instead a stand-alone psychological thriller that takes its plot in a different direction to most.

Instead of emulating the then-popular slasher craze of the 1980s, PSYCHO II plays out as a whodunit for the most part. Norman's back on the streets and back in his motel, and the grisly slayings start up once more. But who's the killer? Is it Norman himself, or the young, seemingly innocent girl (Meg Tilly) living with him? Could it be the returning Vera Miles as Lila Loomis, seeking vengeance for her sister's slaying in the original by setting Norman up? Or somebody else with an axe to grind?

While there is the expected bloodshed in this film, for the most part it's deeper than that, working hard to build up a creepy atmosphere. Anthony Perkins is on top form as his most famous creation, and he succeeds in making Norman a sympathetic protagonist; watching this guy losing his mind for the second time is truly a tragic occurrence. The presence of supporting players like the reliably sleazy Dennis Franz and the solid Robert Loggia help to make this an effective horror film all in itself.

Norman Bates is back!

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 13 November 2017]

The 1960 'Psycho' is one of Alfred Hitchcock's greatest films and while it is high up in my list of "scariest films of all time" it doesn't stop it from being a personal favourite. Mainly for the cinematography, Hitchcock's direction, the music score and Anthony Perkins.

Hearing that 'Psycho' had three sequels, my immediate reaction was what's the point especially considering the fiasco that was the 1998 remake. It did strike me initially that 'Psycho' was perfect as it was and didn't need a sequel, let alone three as well as a telefilm spin-off and remake. The first sequel, finally getting round to watching the sequels after a little arm twisting, turned out to be surprisingly good. Not just being a worthy follow-up but also a well above average film in its own way. Is it as good as Hitchcock's film? Not a chance, not as scary or as suspenseful. But considering that expectations were dubious 'Psycho II' was so much better than expected.

'Psycho II' starts to drag ever so slightly towards the end and occasionally feels a touch over-plotted. Sadly too the ending is ridiculous and undermines the actually very neat execution of the rest of the film.

On the other hand, 'Psycho II' boasts some very stylish and moody cinematography and the setting is still eerie even in colour. Jerry Goldsmith proves himself to be a more than worthy successor to Bernard Hermann, enormous shoes to fill considering Hermann's score in the 1960 film is one of the most iconic chilling music scores in cinema. Goldsmith's score here is lush and ominously haunting without ever intruding.

Franklin directs beautifully, having a real knack for creating a creepy atmosphere and suspenseful touch, not quite the unequalled Hitchcockian touch but it is the closest the sequels ever get to having anything resembling it. The script is clever and taut with some touches of darkly wicked humour, while the story is on the most part very neatly paced, highly atmospheric and always coherent with some very imaginative twists.

As for the performances, they are also strong. Anthony Perkins returns in his most iconic role and proves that only one person can play this character. Meg Tilly and Vera Miles are very credible too while Dennis Franz and Robert Loggia provide some necessary grit.

In summary, surprisingly good and worthy first sequel to a classic. Doesn't disgrace it at all. 7/10 Bethany Cox

One of the best sequels known to man

[Beegee · 12 February 1999]

When I went to my local video store a year and half ago, I noticed that there were no less than four "psycho" movies there. Having seen the original, I figured that they would all be cash-ins. Two weeks ago I finally hired psycho 2 in to finally prove my point to myself. I was wrong. This movie has everything a sequel to psycho could need. A great plot (probably better than the first one's), excellent direction, and great acting. Perkins is so much better here than in the original psycho that one can't help thinking it's a shame that he passed away. There are heaps of reasons to see this movie, and very few not to if you're a suspense fan. If you liked the original you'll love this, and even if you didn't you'll still love it.

Ranks as #1 in the "better than you'd think"- category

[Coventry · 7/10 · 18 January 2004]

Safe to say that Psycho II suffers from all the prejudices possible. Numberless elements could be used as an excuse to avoid this movie and to place it among other pointless and money-making sequels. Brought out 22 years after the original masterpiece by Hitchcock himself, I can imagine that many fans refuse to give a subjective look at it. Very wrong, though!! Number two is a very worthy and underrated sequel, which brings perfect homage to the Master of Suspense best film. Even though Franklin can't fully live up to Hitchcock's style, he shows a pretty intense and mind-blowing story here. Franklin obviously worships Hitchcock (which was also clear in one of his previous films - Patrick) and this sequels is made with nothing but respect and goodwill. The very creative script - written by Tom Holland - has more than enough positive aspects and perplexing twists to consider the entire movie a triumph. Sure, some of the twists are far-fetched but overall the continuation of the Psycho couldn't be better. It actually takes place 22 years later with Norman Bates judged sane and released from the mental institution. Some people immediately want to forgive and forget but some others are convinced that Norman will soon go crazy again. This last group of people also has a complete plan worked out to make Norman snap again. Soon there are people dying again in the infamous Bates ' Motel but who is the vicious murderer this time??? Psycho II manages to keep you guessing the entire movie and the terrific acting performance by Anthony Perkins keeps you even closer to the screen. If you were a fan of the original masterpiece ( and I can't imagine anyone isn't a fan of that ), make sure you catch this sequel too!! There were made two more sequels after this but you can easily skip then....and whatever you do...keep your hands off the Gus Van Sant remake of 1998. I wish I had!!

Not Hitchcock, But Surprisingly Good

[zkonedog · 6/10 · 11 March 2017]

The original "Psycho", directed by Alfred Hitchcock, is one of the seminal horror films of all-time. However, Hitch didn't believe in sequels, so it took about two decades and a new director (Richard Franklin) to revive this franchise. Surprisingly, it is an entertaining re=entry into the world of Norman Bates.

For a basic plot summary, "Psycho II" picks up with Bates (Anthony Perkins) being released from prison after his earlier murders. After being brought back to his motel business, Norman begins to struggle once again with the demons of his past.

What really gives this film credence is the return of Perkins as Bates. He does a remarkable job of playing a supposedly "reformed" Bates, both tortured by past memories yet trying to get back on the right mental track. A major role for Vera Miles is also a nice nod to the original.

I can't say much about the plot without giving things away, but suffice it to say that it is very thoughtful as horror flicks go. It's never stale, and the ending easily recalls the "shock factor" of the first effort.

Thus, "Psycho II" is a solid addition to one of the stalwart thriller/horror franchises. It is well- acted, has an engaging plot, and will at least make you curious about checking out part three.

Intelligent follow-up to the classic film with a sensational Perkins

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 5 December 2005]

Picture talks about Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) who has finally been released from the mental asylum where he has been for many years . But he's chased by mistress Loomis (Vera Miles), sister of Marion (Janet Leigh) Crane (murdered previously in the shower). His preceptor doctor (Robert Loggia) will help him for the return . He goes back to the Bates motel and the mansion and the assassinations begin happening again . Meanwhile , he meets an enticing Young (Meg Tilly) who's invited to stay at home . The doctor (Loggia) will try to solve the awful and ominous killings .

The movie is plenty of grisly murders , stabbing shots , horror , suspense , shocks and great load of blood and gore but also a little of dark humor . It's a sequel to Hitchcock's classic continuing cleverly the plot (scripted by Tom Holland) of the former film . In 1960, psychosis (1960) made over 32 million dollars in worldwide box office returns where as this film made over 34 million dollars . The original house set was used and the motel was reconstructed . The killer/Perkins does an authentic slaughter and are utilized in the gruesome and creepy murders axe , knife , cleaver until the amazing final carnage . The motion picture was rated ¨R¨ for crude and brutal killings and scabrous violence and isn't apt for squeamish but abounds blood and guts . Anthony Perkins makes a terrific acting in his classic role . He'll be forever Norman Bates . Jerry Goldsmith music is good , but he copies to Bernard Herrmann classic score . Dean Cundey cinematography is excellent . The film , shot in 32 days , was well directed by Richard Franklyn who has made various fine terror movies (Patrick , road games , visitors) .

Revenge of the 80's: The sequels!

[Captain_Couth · 7/10 · 9 October 2004]

Psycho II (1983) was the first of several sequels of the infamous Psycho. For reasons unknown mad Norman Bates is finally let out of the funny farm despite the objections of many people in the community.

Old Norman seeks out his old job (proprietor of the Bates Motel) and goes back to the old family homestead. Whilst he get's the motel manager's position he decides to resides in the old family pad, something from his past comes back to haunt him. He also meets a strange young lady (Meg Tily). Her presence lights something deep inside his psyche and It doesn't take him long to get his groove back.

An okay sequel to the first film. A lot better and well made than I expected it to be. Funny thing about the sequels. They're quite interesting and well made. They could have easily given up and made them as sleazy and schlocky as most of the crap that was produced during this time period. But thanks to the steady guidance of Anthony Perkins they never do get out of hand. I recommend this one and the rest of the series (sans the dreadful Bates Motel). Just don't expect too much from them or you might be disappointed.

Recommended.

A Terrific Sequel!

[namashi_1 · 9/10 · 10 March 2012]

A Sequel to Alfred Hitchcock's Cult-Classic 'Psycho', 'Psycho II' lives up-to the expectations & turns out to be A Terrific Sequel! Also, Anthony Perkins once again plays Norman Bates, amazingly.

'Psycho II' Synopsis: After twenty-two years of psychiatric care, Norman Bates attempts to return to a life of solitude... but the specters of his crimes -- and his mother -- continue to haunt him.

'Psycho II' has a superior start, middle & end. The Thrills are top-notch! Tom Holland's Screenplay is gripping & very well-written. Richard Franklin's Direction is eerie & unsettling. Cinematography is good. Editing is sharp. Art Design is excellent.

Performance-Wise: As mentioned before, Anthony Perkins once again plays Norman Bates, amazingly. He's impeccable in here! Vera Miles is first-rate. Meg Tilly is impressive. Robert Loggia leaves a mark. Dennis Franz is passable.

On the whole, 'Psycho II' is a High-Class Sequel, that Thrills, Scares & above all, Entertains Big Time!

Redemption (?)

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 22 May 2019]

Would Hitchcock approve of this? In general you can say: No. Why? Because he apparently did not like Sequels to his movies (maybe not in general either?). But when this was made, so many years after the original, Hitch was not around to object. And he could have since he had the rights to the original. Something that may not be too common, but was the case, because he did not get as much money as he wanted, but instead could have more rights to the movie, which in the end proved essential.

Now, would this make sense if Perkins did not reprise his iconic role? I would argue that it would have not. There were some initial doubts, but fortunately he came back. There is a bit of a twist and there are quite a few callbacks to the Original. Of course catching lightning in the bottle is not possible. But it is still a valid story and a good continuation.

If you are a fan of the original, I don't think you will be too dissapointed in this (as most have been with the other sequels). But one thing is for sure: Perkins seems to be born to play this role ...

Actually not as bad as I expected, but it defeats he whole purpose of the first classic thriller

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 5/10 · 30 April 2008]

I don't know why, but when I was shopping for DVD's at Best Buy I found the triple feature for all the Psycho sequels, it was ten dollars, so I figured what the heck? So I bought it and I watched Psycho 2 last night, it actually was not as bad as I expected. It was an interesting plot and made the story work, I'm not going to say that it was un-necessary, yeah, Psycho did not need a sequel, but it wasn't a bad movie to watch. My only problem with the film, the blood, Hitchcock did something that made the first film scary, he left things to the imagination, the mind's power and thought is more powerful than seeing something and jumping so quickly to conclusion. Psycho 2 shows a lot more blood and gore. But Anthony Perkins performs well and makes Psycho 2 worth the watch.

Norman Bates is back in business, he is released from the mental institution, but when Lila Loomis finds out about this, she freaks out and sends her daughter, Mary into undercover duty to try to get Norman back where he belongs. But something is odd, Norman seems actually like he could have a normal life, just everyone is playing tricks on him to where he's loosing his mind once again, or is he? Mary tries to keep a cool Norman so she's not the next Marian Craine.

Psycho 2 is over all a decent sequel, I wouldn't mind watching it again actually. The story keeps your attention and there are some chilling moments. It was a little predictable I think, I had a feeling with Mary, that her story wouldn't end so well, but it's all good, you'll have to see what I mean. Psycho 2 is worth the watch if you loved the first Psycho, just like I said, I think they did mess up on showing too much blood and gore, Hitchcock got it right by leaving it to the imagination.

5/10

It's a wonderful sequel to Hitchcock's masterpeice!

[marcfantozzi · 10/10 · 17 April 2001]

Psycho II is a great horror sequel. Not only is it entertaining, it has many wonderful twists and turns through out which make it even more enjoyable. Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles, Robert Loggia and Meg Tilly are all great and turn in very good performances. Vera Miles turns in a very eccentric performance, it shows how much she hates Norman. Anthony Perkins makes the viewer feel sorry for him as he slowly becomes confused again. Meg Tilly has a lot of charm and Robert Loggia is very good as the very caring Doctor. It's a well done thrill- ride, highly entertaining and full of suspense, thanks to director Franklin. Well done to every one involved. I think this is the best Psycho sequel. I love it a lot! You'd think that as it is the sequel to the classic Psycho, it would suck, it does not!

My personal rating: 10 out of 10.

We all go a little sequel crazy sometimes.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 19 October 2014]

22 years after the murderous and maniacal events at Bates Motel, Norman Bates, freshly released from a mental institution, is back home; and the spectre of "Mother" is waiting to greet him.

We could say it was a cynical attempt at latching onto the coat tails of the 1980s slasher boom, but in spite of having the unenviable task of being a sequel to a masterpiece, Psycho II is a rather nifty sequel.

Director Richard Franklin is helped by having Anthony Perkins and Vera Miles heading up the cast list, this gives the film instant credibility, and while the mighty spectre of Hitchcock looms large, Franklin doesn't copy the maestro and brings his own visual smarts to the piece.

Tom Holland's screenplay doesn't mimic either, expanding the Bates story with a series of quality twists whilst keeping the mystery element strong and the gripping factor on the high heat. Dean Cundey (cinematography) and Jerry Goldsmith (music) round out the strong points of the film's tech credits.

Not to be dismissed as a lazy cash in, this is well worth a look. Great ending as well! 7/10

Psychosis in the extreme to think that this would be a good idea...

[Howlin Wolf · 2/10 · 15 November 2008]

Horrendous pillaging of a classic.

It wasn't written convincingly at all why Mary should develop such sympathy for Bates. He may be more stable until they start playing pranks with him, but he still doesn't help himself at all with his actions. (inviting a comparative stranger to stay alone with him in his until recently disused motel; telling the attractive young girl of his past mental issues; lying about the knives, etc... ) This, in addition to her previous knowledge should have kept Mary extremely wary of him, but this somehow doesn't happen just so they can play the 'mistaken-identity-murder-game later on. Which in itself is also ridiculous: 'So-and-so is the real killer - plus her as well - also him! There were too many contrived twists in order to slap a story on screen when the narrative didn't need extending.

It was good to see Perkins reprising his famous role again, but that's about the only small pleasure to be had. It's definitely not a patch on Hitchcock, and if you have no intention of even trying to get close then you shouldn't be bothering at all.

Underrated

[samip15 · 26 August 2003]

What a pleasure it is to see good old Norman in this rather decent sequel to the acclaimed the movie 'Psycho' - Anthony Perkins' role in this film is one fantastic, also an interesting and unpredictable plot buffers up the quality of this film, a great film, and a hidden gem....RECOMMENDED

An impressive achievement.

[EijnarAmadeus · 7/10 · 30 July 2012]

Psycho (1960) got its follow-up twenty-three years later, and who could have predicted such a quality film as this. Some major assets in the original was its psychological layers, its atmosphere, and the major performance by Anthony Perkins, and impressively, Psycho II contains all of this. The story evolves well, and the antagonist Norman Bates (Perkins) who we saw in a mental cell with his face blurred as a skeleton skull in the final scene of the original, is here presented as someone who's trying to earn himself a place back in society, and as someone the viewer really feels sympathy for. That's a great twist, and as the first half of the film gels elegantly, the second half ups the game with several surprises and complex plot progressions. The cinematography Dean Cundey is splendid, the performances by Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles and Meg Tilly and the music by Jerry Goldsmith is outstanding. Psycho II is definitely one of the best horror sequels I've seen.

The Bates Motel is back in business

[veryape-887-913905 · 7/10 · 30 January 2014]

Some 20 years after Alfred Hitchcock released the thriller PSYCHO, they finally decided to make a sequel to it. It's been 22 years since the events of PSYCHO and Norman Bates has just been released from psychiatric care, apparently cured from his mental illness. However the sister of one of his victims Lila Crane-Loomis is outraged and swears revenge. Norman is returned home to his motel, only to make another enemy when he fires Mr. Toomey who'd been hired by the hospital and had been running the place as an "adult" motel. Norman begins to adjust back to normal life and even takes on a permanent lodger, a young girl called Mary Samuels who works at the local diner. But things start to go peculiar when he starts receiving phone calls and notes from his dead mother.

His therapist doctor Raymond does some investigating and finds that Lila is behind the malicious calls, but when she and Mr. Toomey both vanish, apparently the victims of a mysterious old lady wielding a knife, we see that something else is amiss. Questions are also raised as to whether the late Mrs Bates was actually Norman's real mother.

Norman's guest Mary is also not who she seems as she is the daughter to Lila and is also drive Norman to insanity again, you also find out who Norman's real mother is!

This film starred: Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles & Meg Tilley

In my opinion I think that this film is better than the original. I was not a fan of the first film, however I am a fan of this film. The director took a massive risk in directing this as it could have been a massive failure, however it was a enjoyable film IN MY OPINION.

***/***** Good film.

Spacy Meg Tilly: the perfect ally for Norman Bates!

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 7 June 2001]

Anthony Perkins reportedly felt threatened as an actor playing opposite Meg Tilly (portraying a slightly-dazed cupcake who befriends Norman Bates, just out of the asylum); if true, he had good reason, for Tilly is very appealing in her role and this sequel to Alfred Hitchcock's classic screamer gains a spirit of its own--away from its predecessor--every time she's on-screen. The plot is business-as-usual, with a lot of repetitive, cornball dialogue ("It's my mother!" "No, it's MY mother!"). It's great to see those famous sets again, and the filmmakers try to create a stylish, old-fashioned atmosphere at the outset, but a gory, dispiriting conclusion and a dumbbell tag at the end (designed for another sequel) weakens the whole shebang. **1/2 out of ****

You assume its bad. Not even close.

[havoke-74121 · 7/10 · 29 October 2020]

It messes with your mind. I thought there was four different ways to conclude. Subtleties for character building i declare. A Conclusion that delivers clarity through the unexpected period

As far as blatantly unnecessary sequels go this isn't just good it's great...

[DarthVoorhees · 9/10 · 25 April 2012]

Alfred Hitchcock's 'Psycho' is a classic piece of cinema. It has become one of the defining iconic pieces of film that is heralded as a holy grail. What I admire about it is it's simplicity and the audacity it has to create a bizarre character like Norman Bates. I can only imagine what audiences must have thought going into that film because the implications of such a character for an audience coming out of the conservative fifties must have been truly unsettling. What makes Norman such a great character is how clear the divide is between Mother and Norman. Norman is a likable guy. Anthony Perkins does not scream psychopath, he could just as easily be your friend or neighbor. There is a large chunk of Psycho were we even are encouraged to identify with Norman and I imagine that is what made the film so endearing to 60's audiences.

Flash forward twenty years to 'Psycho II'. Norman's secret is out of the bag and you don't even need to see 'Psycho' to know it. 'Psycho II' was released in the sea of Freddy Krueger wanna be's and going into 'Psycho II' I expected something along those lines. I put off seeing it as sort of an exercise in film snobbery as I thought the attempt to do a sequel should be shunned. I feared Norman Bates would be turned into a Freddy Krueger. That isn't to say I don't like Freddy Krueger I just saw 'Psycho' as above it. This may have been my great mistake in looking at the film. Hitchcock probably wasn't setting out to make a Holy Grail with 'Psycho' and Robert Bloch's initial novel was nothing more than a dime story scandal novel. It makes perfect sense taking Norman Bates and putting him in the culture he created. I expected Norman to wield a knife with no motive other than shock value and going in with little knowledge of the film I was pleasantly surprised to see that the film does not take this approach, in fact it violently rejects it as it's main arc.

Norman Bates wants to be cured and turn over a new leaf and surprisingly the audience wants him to too. Norman is our hero here. Anthony Perkins gives an absolutely wonderful performance as Norman Bates. The character is multi-dimensional and has grown since the last film. Perkins plays up all of Norman's good qualities, he is a polite and kind man with a horrible alter ego. We see that the last thing Norman wants in the world is to become Mother again. In a way 'Psycho II' is kind of a tragic film. With Norman we see an addict whose addiction completely dominated his life. In 'Psycho II' he starts off clean and sober but slowly he begins to relapse and we can't help but feel sorry for him. Perkins brings Norman to low points. He becomes absolutely pathetic and powerless by the climax of the film and we feel for him because Perkins shows that Norman has genuinely tried to overcome the demons in his closet.

There are grisly killings in 'Psycho II' and I expected them. 'Psycho II' feels like an 80's slasher when the bodies start littering the screen. Frankly, this is the least interesting aspect of the film. 'Psycho II' is a character study and the murders merely serve to mess with Norman's sanity. It doesn't matter who the killer really ends up being in 'Psycho II' because we know it is not Norman. One thing that really strikes me about the original 'Psycho' and indeed any good horror film is that it is not the monster that we fear but the presence around the monster. 'Psycho II' is all about presence. 'Mother' is an entity. I would be perfectly fine with 'Psycho II' if all the killings took place in Norman's imagination because the weight of the violence is so strong. Stylistically, the killings have more in common with a Friday the 13th film than Hitchcock but what matters is this isn't a film with a body count for the sake of having one.

The film isn't really completely about Norman however. 'Psycho II' does a very good job in showing how the community and Norman's victims were affected by what he did. The plot involved Lila Loomis and her daughter Mary is pitch perfect. Bringing back Vera Miles was a wonderful choice as her character has become just as disturbed as Norman. And really what reaction does someone have to such grisly events? No one has any faith in Norman to come back from the depths of insanity and it really is symbolical of 'Psycho' and it's slasher clones. By the end of 'Psycho II' Norman is back for good and it is satisfying to see the cost it has on the character and the fruitless battle he put up to save himself from this fate.

A sequel that shouldn't be forgotten

[bernardwarchal · 7/10 · 21 October 2018]

Psycho II is a pretty good follow-up to the 1968 horror classic. What I love about this movie is it's not just a rehash of the first movie. It expands upon the character of Norman Bates in a terrifying sympathetic way. Anthony Perkins is once again terrifying good as Norman Bates. His portrayal is also sympathetic as this movie shows a different side of Bates as he is tormented by his mother in PTSD flashbacks. Vera Miles also plays a great villain as Lila Loomis (formerly Lila Crane from the first movie) tries to get Norman recommitted after his release by having his go crazy and kill someone. She's one of those villains where you can see the motivation but don't agree with her methods. This movie is also very suspenseful in that you're waiting to see if Norman ever breaks his sanity. The director Richard Franklin does a great job of imitating Hitchcock's directing style while still making it his own. The film has a lot of great exaggerated angles that beautifully showcase the set design. John W. Corso the production designer did a great job with the motel sets. The flashback showing "Mother's room" is beautiful. However, this movie is not perfect and has some issues. I personally found Meg Tilly's portrayal as Mary Loomis to be wooden but it's not overly distracting. The kills in the movie are also a bit to over the top. It's not that the kills aren't good but they're more like kills you'd see in a Friday the 13th movie rather than something like Psycho. But my main complaint is the twist ending in which the woman who runs the Diner in which Norman works has been committing the murders throughout the film and is his biological mother and Ms. Bates just adopted him. This ending is pointless and stupid and almost ruins the entire movie. The twist does nothing to further the plot and it would have been terrifying if Norman was doing it unaware. This twist is just attached last minute in a sort of gotcha moment when the movie was fine in fact great without it. With this twist just tacked on it make a great movie almost on par with the original just a pretty good sequel. It'd be like if they made a really good Batman movie and at the end for no reason we find out that the Waynes weren't his actual parents. I would suggest just stopping this movie right at the scene where he's eating the toasted cheese sandwiches after he gets home from the police station and you'll leave good enough alone. But overall, I felt this was a really good follow up despite the ending and is worth checking out if you're a fan of the original

Boring

[profkringsconsulting · 3/10 · 12 May 2023]

One cannot help but wonder why anyone would make part 2 of a masterpiece - you can never achieve the same quality or in this case the same impact. And basically that's pretty much the issue with this film. Norman Bates is freed after over twenty years, goes back to his place, strange things happen and Norman wonders if he's losing his marbles again. Inspite of a delightfully sleazy performance by Dennis Franz, the film just meanders along, with boring parts and scenes that are meant to be suspenseful but just don't work. Overall the result is an incredibly boring film. Even if it was not Psycho 2 but a film in its own right, it just wouldn't work because a thin story is stretched out way too long.

Unexpectedly good

[tinome · 8/10 · 19 July 2006]

I first saw this movie as a horror loving kid, and I loved it. But then, as a grownup, I was reluctant to watch it again since so many films I loved as a kid turned out to be junk, after all. Since I'm a big Meg Tilly fan, I kinda wanted to keep my good memories... so I watched it again, for the same reason (go figure).

Well, it was even better than I remembered. Anthony Perkins gives a truly moving performance, and it's an accomplishment in itself considering the fact that it's an 80's horror movie - not to mentioned the legacy of the first. But the actor proposed a completely convincing continuation of the character. And yes, Tilly is quite good; not at all your average damsel in distress. I wish she'd consider a comeback (she was the ultimate wicked step-mom in Body Snatchers).

All in all, a very nice surprise, and certainly no disgrace to the original.

Don't compare it to the original...

[doggonegood44 · 7/10 · 17 April 2017]

...because it's not a fair comparison. Hitchcock is long gone.

If, however, you judge Psycho II on strictly its own merits, it's pretty good. Or as good as I think a sequel to Psycho could ever be.

Anthony Perkins is a large reason for this. He still has it. Many closed doors and strange passageways etched onto his face. Perkins delivers.

Jerry Goldsmith - the composer....comes up with something COMPLETELY different than Hermann did. And once again, on its own and without judging it or comparing it to the original, it's quite beautiful and sad.

Now I can't say much for the sequels that continued past this one, but Psycho II is a guilty pleasure of mine.

Bargain basement quick-cash entertainment - Hitch spins in his grave

[Oggz · 2/10 · 21 November 2006]

Dear me, what a mess. The least Universal could have done is to hire De Palma to accomplish a near-honest job - who else? As it is, this premature ejaculation that passes itself for a sequel suffers terminally from an unforgivably pedestrian dialogue and lousy, almost amateurish and heartless actor guidance by the director. Admittedly, Meg Tilly attempts to breathe some life into her character - the decent actress that she is - but is suppressed to a standstill by a dismal script. Anthony Perkins meanders between reasonably good and overtly cartoonish in his delivery, a far, far cry from his original portrayal of Norman Bates - and who can blame him, given what he was presented to work with. Loggia does a half-hearted run of the mill job, as does the typecast Dennis Franz in his short-lived appearance, whereas Vera Miles - the supposedly pivotal character of Lila Loomis, nee Crane - is simply awful, totally failing to convince in a potentially grateful role of the conniving Crane sister who bullies her own daughter into the conspiracy against Bates. She lets out a great scream as she dies, though - provided it's really her own - her murder scene bearing all the moronic OTT hallmarks of the eighties slasher-by-numbers flicks.

What could (and imperatively should) have been a studious, serious, carefully written and dark sequel to one of the most famous films in movie history immediately descends into a cheap Friday the 13th-style popcorn throwaway yarn (and apparently much worse was to come). It lacks any of the atmosphere of it's predecessor, any distinct atmosphere of it's own and indeed any suspense to begin with - every plot advancement and every murder is trumpeted to us well ahead, peppered by over explanatory dialogue and constrained by a sluggish mis-en-scene, with the possible exception of the stabbing of the dope-smoking kid, seen through a dusty cellar window and well accentuated by out of character music as the camera withdraws. There is another scene worth noting - the sound of the hoover obliterating the argument between mother and daughter in the hotel lobby (almost a Hitchcockian moment, most probably lifted from elsewhere) - but even that is only there for decoration as it has absolutely no bearing on the actual plot. Not even the always reliable Jerry Goldsmith manages to save this - his score is elaborate, nicely orchestrated and competently put together, even commendably attempting to re-route the atmosphere by adding a shade of melancholy and sadness to the proceedings - but there's precious little else to look for in the film, apart from a handful of showy camera movements and angles. People who swear by the original "Psycho" will absolutely hate this, and rightly so. Drab, insipid, unintelligent and constipated, this was the first step towards the total degradation of the Psycho franchise which was to follow. Arguably Hitchcock's finest hour should have been left alone or re-approached seriously. Terrible.