No matter how many times one sits through this Hitchcock classic, Anthony Perkins always manages to surprise you. It is a sensational performance - for which he didn't even get an Oscar nomination - I have no way of knowing how much preparation he dedicated to the creation of Norman Bates, maybe no more than usual, but the details of his performance are astonishing. Never a false move and if you follow the film looking into his eyes, you'll be amazed as I was. The madness and the tenderness, the danger and the cravings. A mamma's boy with hellish implications and yet we see, we feel connected to the human being, we are not horrified by him but of his circumstances. In short, we kind of understand him. That alone puts him miles and miles away from other cinematic monsters. From Richard Attenborough as the real life Christie in "10 Rillington Place" to the hideous, unredeemable Christian Bale in "American Psycho". Here Hitchcock and Herrman create an universe that Anthony Perkins inhabits with the same kind of electricity, nerve and shyness that Norman Bates projects throughout the film. Janet Leigh falls for it if not him. She, like us, sees the boy trying to escape his dutiful son's trap. He is in my list of the 10 most riveting characters ever to be captured on film.
Add a Review
-
mark-lovellsamuels27 July 2009
-
telegonus5 September 2001So much has been written about this film that all I can do is add my own voice of approval and say that I consider it to be a masterpiece, and add a few things often overlooked or not commented on that add so much to the movie's cumulative power. It's often the little things that make a film work. Here are a few examples:
a.) The absolute realism of the first twenty minutes of so, which are so true to life that they might have come from a documentary on how people lived in America forty years ago. There isn't a false note,--or a missed one--as each vocal inflection and raised eyebrow carries great meaning even if, on the surface, not much appears to be happening.
b.) Marion and the motorcycle cop. The cop is dark and sinister in appearance, due mostly to the bright desert sun, and never takes off his sunglasses. His conduct is at all times professional; he never raises his voice, and comes across as calm and rather perceptive; and he seems truly concerned over Marion Crane's fate, though he is unaware of her actual predicament. Marion is, alas, a bad actress, and the cop sees through this, if not to the heart of the matter, yet we don't want him to follow her. Despite his appearance the cop is not the angel of death but rather Marion's last chance. Had she confessed to her crime she would have escaped the fate that awaited her; and if she had just been a little less clever, and driven more slowly, and the skies remained clear, he might have followed her to the motel and intervened on her behalf.
c.) California Charlie. John Anderson is wonderful as the fast-talking, semi-streetwise small town used car salesman. At the end of almost every other line of dialogue he seems on the verge of discovering who Marion really is, then pulls back or comes to the wrong conclusion. He senses that she is being watched by the cop; but he also wants to make a sale. The scenes at the used car lot are both highly realistic,--and perfectly acted and timed--and also a little frightening, from the opening, "I'm in no mood for trouble", to the final "hey!" just before Marion drives away. We know that something isn't right, but the problem isn't with the car lot; it's Marion's plight casts a dark shadow over all her scenes there, despite the brightest sunlight imaginable.
d.) Chitchat with Norman. Once Marion and Norman settle down for a light meal in the parlor their conversation turns to general things, and Norman is a good observer, if a bit awkward socially. Without actually lying Marion gives herself away with a throwaway line ("Sometimes just once is enough", in a reference to private traps) and Norman seems to catch her drift, if not the actual meaning of what she's saying, and allows it to pass. We can see that he is moody when he angrily leans forward and delivers an angry, though controlled tirade against putting people in institutions. Every camera angle and line of dialogue in this scene has meaning and carries enormous weight, and yet the drama plays out in a light, relaxed mode, and the performers seems truly connected to one another at its conclusion, strangers no more. This is in my opinion the best written and most beautifully acted, edited and photographed scene I have ever seen in a movie. The handling of every nuance is prodigal and masterful, and the end result nothing less than staggering.
e.) The sheriff's house. When Sam and Lila wake up the sheriff and his wife in the middle of the night we see a splendid example of people talking to one another without either party understanding what is in fact going on. The result is a mini-comedy of manners; but it is also good exposition, as we learn of Mrs. Bates' death (and the dress she was buried in, "periwinkle blue"). John McInyre's sheriff dominates this scene (and no other), and expertly delivers its punchline, "Well if that's Mrs. Bates in the window, who's that buried up in Greenlawn Cemetary".
f.) Arbogast and Norman. The private detective's interview with Norman is played low-key, and yet we sense the tension in Norman's voice and manner, and know that Arbogast does, too. Something is amiss. This is beyond the question of who killed Marion. The stakes feel very high in this sparring match, and though Norman wins on a technicality, we know that Arbogast is coming back for more.
g.) The shrink's explanation. This part of the film has been criticized by many for being a sop thrown to the audience. I disagree. After all, the movie came out in 1960, and by the standards of the time some explanation seems in order, and Dr. Simon Oakland is as good a man for the job as I can imagine. His analysis of Norman's pathology is cogent and extremely well delivered. Yet throughout his speech, with all its Freudian brilliance, the doctor offered a take on the story that we in the audience, even if we can accept it, can never be satisfied with. He can explain the character of Norman Bates rationally, but he cannot make our response to his story and its effect on us feel ultimately safe, feel somehow in control and finalized. Yes, one can put people like Norman under the microscope, and even dissect what one sees, but this doesn't stop such events as unfolded in the movie any less likely to occur. Ask Milton Arbogast.
In conclusion I'd like to say that great films are made up of outstanding little things, not just big moments or fancy effects. There is in fact nothing fancy about Psycho, which is on the surface is a somewhat plain-looking movie. Only when one looks beneath the surface does one see the teeming millions of small things,--gestures, glances, sudden changes in lighting, razor-sharp editing, and all above the refusal on the part of the director to let any one factor dominate--that we understand the meaning of the word genius, the meaning of the word creative. -
arichmondfwc19 May 2017Getting into Hitchcock's Psycho, 57 years after its original release is like assisting to a masterclass of sorts. We can now identify what made this little lurid tale into a classic. Hitchcock himself, naturally, but now we know the first director's cut was a major disappointment and that Alma Reville - Hitch's wife - took over, re edited and the results have been praised, applauded and studied ever since. Janet Leigh's Marion Crane created a movie landmark with her shower scene. Bernard Herrmann and his strings created an extra character that we recognize as soon as it reappears under any disguise but, what shook me the most now in 2017 is Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates. His performance has evolved with the passing of time and its effect has remain as chilling, as moving, as funny and as real as it was in 1960. It's interesting to watch Gus Van Sant's 1998 version with Vince Vaugh as Norman Bates. If you look at the film, shot by shot with Berrnard Herrmann's strings - it's pretty fantastic. - Play it in black and white if you can. The problem and it is a monumental problem, we wait for Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins, if the casting of Anne Heche was really bad - not a hint of Janet Leigh's humanity, the casting of Vince Vaughn was incomprehensible. Not just not credible for a moment but annoying, very annoying. Anthony Perkins brought something profoundly personal to Norman Bates and as a consequence we connected with his sickness. We felt for him. Okay, sorry, I didn't mean to go there but I felt compelled to because I saw again Psycho (1960) ad Psycho (1998) at 24 hours from each other and realized that the main flaw of the 1998 versions is the absence of Anthony Perkins.
-
littlemartinarocena23 November 2007Robert Bloch wrote the original work, Joseph Stefano adapted it into a tight screenplay but it was Alfred Hitchcock with the extraordinary complicity of Bernard Herrmann who transformed this lurid tale into a classic, horror masterpiece. The score propels us into the moment before the moment arrives provoking the sort of anticipation that verges on the unbearable. The fact that the key scenes have become iconic film moments: copied, imitated, emulated and parodied, have not diminished its impact, not really. The anticipation, underlined by Herrmann's strings, creates a sort of craving for the moment to arrive. That doesn't happen very often. No amount of planning can produce it or re-produce it - otherwise how do you explain the Gus Van Sant version - so, the only possible explanation is an accident, a miraculous film accident and those do happen. Everything falls into place so perfectly that even the things that one may argue are below the smart standard of the film, are needed, the film without every frame is not quite the film. Try to turn away after the climax during Simon Oakland's long explanation. You can't. I couldn't. Partly because you know you'll soon be confronting those eyes, that fly, the car...
-
AlsExGal25 March 2017...from the first time I saw it at age 14 until today whenever I run across it.
This is the rare example of a much-ballyhooed film that is truly deserving of all the hype surrounding it. It would have been nice to have experienced the film without any knowledge of the plot twists. Unfortunately, for most viewers, the big surprises are not possible since so many of the scenes are part of our popular culture.There were, however, so many unexpected surprises.
The opening scene with Janet Leigh and John Gavin in the hotel room was amazing and (pardon the cliché) so real. Hitchcock and Janet Leigh did a brilliant job of pulling us into Marion Crane's story, that of a woman in love with a divorced man who might as well be married considering his heavy financial obligations that leave him unable to marry in a practical sense even though he can in a legal sense. He doesn't even have a proper home - just a room in the back of the store he owns.
Marion is then seemingly set up as the center of the movie as she thinks she has found a solution to her problems - a felonious one. Then the focus is skillfully shifted to the Norman Bates character as the "protagonist" victimized by his insane mother (or so it seemed) and then the focus is shifted once again to Marion's sister's search.
The movie was adapted from a novel so some of the original audience would have been familiar with the plot of the book. In the novel, Norman Bates was a middle-aged man. I think it was a brilliant stroke to have the Norman of the film as a man in his twenties, a boy who never grew up in a man's body. Anthony Perkins is so identified today with his role of Norman Bates that it was surprising to see how endearingly he played him in the early scenes. And he did one of the best stammers I've ever seen in a movie when he was being questioned by the private detective (Martin Balsam) who is also searching for Marion. I also wasn't expecting to see how protective the local sheriff and his wife were of Norman when they were being questioned about him and his mother. You could tell they didn't want somebody (Norman) whom they thought had been dealt a bad hand to have anymore publicity and scrutiny than he already had.
This film is mentioned in the documentary "Moguls and Movie Stars" as an example of how films were becoming more like TV as the 60s began - spartan art design and a script that was bold in the amount of sex and violence it had, even if the vast majority is implied. You have to be impressed by the versatility that is Hitchcock. Making movies in England? No problem. Making movies in the American studio system? No problem. Modernizing to deal with the evaporation of the production code? Again, no problem.
Weird factoid - for you TCM fans out there Robert Osborne is credited as "man" in Psycho, although I don't remember him ever mentioning it. The only person it could possibly be unless he never comes close to having his face on camera is the parson as the sheriff and his wife are exiting church. See what you think. -
ccthemovieman-125 October 2006When I watched this for the first time in over 30 years, I was surprised how little action there was since I had remembered this as some intense horror movie. Of course, I was young and more impressionable so I guess I just remembered those few dramatic, sensational scenes such as Janet Leigh murdered in the shower and the quick other murder at the top of the stairs. Basically, that was about it, action-wise, BUT I have no complaints because the more I watch this film, the more I like it. It has become my favorite Alfred Hitchcock movie, along with Rear Window.
I mention the lack of action, and blood, too, because younger people who might be watching this for the first time are not going to see the kind of horror film they're accustomed to seeing. A generation back, movie makers tended to build up characters and suspense, so there was a lot more storytelling and less action than you see today. Also, this movie doesn't have the shock value today for audiences, either, not after years of Freddie Krueger-type blood-and-guts seen in the past 30 years.
But, what you WILL see in this movie is (1) superb acting; (2) a fascinating lead character; (3) excellent photography, and (4) a bizarre story.
"Norman Bates" is one of the most famous fictional names in film history, thanks to this film and the great work portraying him by Anthony Perkins. "Norman" is a nutcase, as it turns out and the more you know all about him, the more fun it is to study Perkins and his character "Norman" in subsequent viewings. He really has the guy down pat. However, it isn't just Perkins' film; the supporting is just fine with Leigh, whose figure is still awesome no matter how many times you see it; Martin Balsam as the private detective; Vera Miles and John Gavin. Everyone contributes.
What makes me really enjoy this movie is the cinematography. I bought this on VHS when it became available on widescreen. Later, of course, I got the DVD. Each time, I appreciate John Russell's camera-work and Hitchcock's direction more and more. I wonder if this isn't Hitchcock's best job of directing as his camera angles and lighting are outstanding. On the DVD, the blacks, whites and grays are just super and the famous house next to the Bates Motel never looked better. That house really looks eerie.
The sound effects in here don't hurt. When Balsam is attacked, the accompanying frightening music never fails to bring chills down my spine. The music literally "screams" at you.
I went 35 years between showings but now have watched this five times in the past four years. I love it and look forward to seeing it again. Many people here think this is Hitchcock's greatest film. Add me to that list. -
slokes10 August 2004What can you say about a film that's been talked about to death? Just this: If you've never seen it, you owe it to yourself to do so, not because it's a way of paying homage to the one true master of modern film, but because it's so fun to watch.
Janet Leigh plays a bored office drone who decides to steal some loot from her boss's obnoxious client and parlay it into a new life with her all-too-distant boyfriend. All is going more or less according to plan until she stops in at the wrong motel, where she befriends a friendly if somewhat nerdy desk clerk only to find it causes problems with that clerk's possessive mother, who as her boy explains, "is not herself today." I'll say she isn't, and so would Leigh's Marion Crane, who maybe should have put up that "Do-Not-Disturb" sign before taking a shower.
You can feel the decade literally shifting out of '50s and into '60s with this one. Even the opening shot, where the camera looks over a Western U.S. city in the middle of the afternoon and zooms in on what looks exactly like the Texas School Book Depository overlooking Dealey Plaza. Norman Rockwell touches abound, like the decor of the motel, but look at what's going on around it. People dress well, they still wear fedoras and jackets, but in their tense conversations and hooded gazes you can feel the culture just ticking away like a time bomb waiting to explode.
Most especially, there's Anthony Perkins, who plays motel clerk Norman Bates in a very oddly naturalistic way, complete with facial tics and half-swallowed words, not the polished image one expected to see then. Just compare him with John Gavin, who plays Marion's boyfriend in the standard-actor-of-the-day way. Perkins manages to be so weirdly magnetizing, even in small moments like the way he stumbles on the word "falsity" or notes how creepy he finds dampness to be.
He shines in bigger scenes, too, like his tense chat with Martin Balsam's boorish but diligent private detective character, Arbogast, who along with Perkins and Leigh delivers a landmark performance. The way both actors play out the awkwardness in their conversation makes you literally sweat. Then again, you're always uneasy around Norman. You definitely feel wary of him right away, but you find yourself liking him, too, even when he's busy covering up "Mother's" misdeeds. Not since Bela Legosi played Dracula did you get a horror movie with such a compelling central figure.
If you are sampling the many other comments here, be sure to look up Merwyn Grote's. He makes an interesting, compelling case for how director Alfred Hitchcock used his television series as a template for "Psycho." Certainly "Psycho" looks more like early 1960s television than any of the more sumptuous fare Hitchcock had been bringing to screen at the time. Not only is it in black-and-white, not color, but the sets; a ramshackle motel, a mothbally old house, a couple of cheap looking bedrooms, a bathroom in a used-car dealership, are deliberately low class.
It's thrilling to see Hitchcock move so effectively outside his normal element, and move things along with such clinical detachment and low-key technical finesse. Thrilling, too, to realize this is one of his most accomplished products; made by a man who was experienced enough to know how the game was played, and daring enough still to break the rules; indeed, start a whole new ballgame.
Is it the best Hitchcock movie? It's definitely one of his best, right up there with "The 39 Steps" and "Strangers On A Train" and "Sabotage" and "Shadow Of A Doubt." He only once again came close to making as good a film, with "The Birds," while Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins never escaped the greatness they helped create here. Poor John Gavin had to quit the biz entirely, and became an ambassador.
Often imitated, parodied, referenced, and analyzed to death, "Psycho" still isn't played out nearly 45 years after it came out. You owe it to yourself to pay a visit to the Bates Motel; Norman has a room ready. -
Yes, everything you've heard is true. The score is a part of pop culture. The domestic conflict is well-known. But nothing shocks like the experience itself.
If you have not seen this movie, do yourself a favor. Stop reading thse comments, get up, take a shower, then GO GET THIS MOVIE. Buy it, don't rent. You will not regret it.
"Psycho" is easily the best horror-thriller of all time. Nothing even comes close...maybe "Les Diaboliques" (1955) but not really.
"Psycho" has one of the best scripts you'll ever find in a movie. The movie's only shortcoming is that one of the characters seems to have little motivation in the first act of the movie but as the story progresses, you realize that Hitchcock (GENIUS! GENIUS! GENIUS!) in a stroke of genius has done this on purpose, because there is another character whose motivations are even more important. Vitally important. So important that you totally forget about anything else. I was lucky enough to have spent my life wisely avoiding any conversation regarding the plot of this movie until I was able to see it in full. Thank God I did! The movie has arguably the best mid-plot point and climactic twist in thriller history, and certainly the best-directed ending. The last few shots are chilling and leave a lingering horror in the viewer's mind.
Just as good as the writing is Hitchcock's direction, which is so outstanding that it defies explanation. Suffice it to say that this movie is probably the best directorial effort by film history's best director. I was fortunate enough to see this movie at a big oldtime movie house during a Hitchcock revival. Janet Leigh, still radiant, spoke before the film and explained how Hitchcock's genius was in his ability to 1) frighten without gore and 2) leave his indelible mark on the movie without overshadowing his actors (like the great Jean Renoir could never do). "Psycho" is clearly its own phenomenon, despite all the big-name talent involved.
Hitchcock does not disappoint by leaving out his trademark dark humor. His brilliance is in making a climax that is at once both scary and hilarious. When I saw it in the theatre the audience was both gasping in disbelief while falling-on-the-floor laughing.
One more thing...
Tony Perkins. Janet Leigh got much-deserved accolades for this film, but it is Perkins who gives what remains the single best performance by an actor in a horror movie. He is so understated that his brillance passes you by. He becomes the character. The sheer brillance of the role is evidenced by the ineptitude of the actors in Gus Van Sant's 1998 (dear God make it stop!) shot-for-shot "remake." Though the movies are nearly identical, Hitchcock's is superior mostly because of the acting and the atmosphere (some of the creepiness is lost with color). This is made obvious by the initial conversation between Leigh's character and Perkins, a pivotal scene. The brilliance of Perkins in the original shines even brighter when compared with the ruination in the remake even though the words and the shots were exactly the same. The crucial chemistry in this scene lacking in the remake gives everything away and mars our understanding of upcoming events. The fact that Perkins could never escape this role - his star stopped rising star as it had done in the 50s - proves that he played the part perhaps too well.
I keep using the word brilliant, but I cannot hide my enthusiasm for this movie. It is wholly unlike the overblown, overbudget, overlong fluff spewing all-too-often out of Hollywood today. "Psycho" is simple, well-crafted and just the right length.
Eleven-and-a-half out of ten stars. -
Chris-33219 January 2000When Psycho came out, the horror industry of movies was merely monsters, zombies, werewolves, and vampires. So when Psycho hit screens, the audience was finally introduced to psychological thrillers. It hit with such a huge bang that the audience was shocked...with fear and suspense. Psycho created what the thriller genre is today. It sliced through clique monster movies and changed it forever. Still today when you look at Norman Bates and his extremely freaky look when you see him watching the inspector's car sinking into the swamp sends chills down my spine. And when Marion Crane met her bloody demise in the middle of the movie, Hitchcock proved to everyone that this movie is different, different from every other movie you have ever seen. The cinematography in this movie is fabulous, the music is marvelously freaky, the acting is magnificent, the story is exceptional, and everything else about the movie is great. Too bad the sequels and the new remake was complete trash.
-
Popenoe17 January 1999When you look up the phrase "Horror Film" in the dictionary .. a picture of Janet Leigh screaming in a shower should appear next to it. Undoubtedly, Psycho is the greatest horror film ever made, bar-none. The story is incredible. The acting is near perfection. The cinematography is godly. The soundtrack is perfect. It's hard to find anything wrong with Psycho. Perhaps the only imperfection I can find with Psycho is the inability to stand the test of time. One of the reasons the shower scene has become so notorious is that it's not only filmed to perfection, but because the elements of sexuality and murder are so surreal. In 1960, seeing a nude women being murdered in a shower was something that no-one had experienced yet, and was quite shocking. Nowadays, seeing Jason double-spearing two lovers having sex is nothing uncommon. I envy those who experienced Psycho in 1960 in the theaters .. those experienced the full terror of Psycho.
Aside from this though, the movie is flawless. I won't even go into to how incredible the cinematography is. One thing I think people seem to forget about the movie is the incredible soundtrack. Sound is such an important element in movies and Psycho is undaunted when it comes to sound. The only other horror movie that even comes close to using sound with such perfection is Halloween (1978).
The movie is perfectly casted as well. Janet Leigh as the beautiful Marion Crane, Vera Miles as the concerned sister, Lila Crane, and of course the unforgettable performance from Anthony Perkins as the eerie yet charismatic Norman Bates.
I would recommend this movie to any horror movie film fanatic. I would especially recommend this movie to any horror movie fan not desensitized by Friday The 13th, Nightmare On Elm Street, or Scream .. if such a fan exists. -
Cornpick19 July 2007As with most very old films, Psycho is unlikely to have the same impact on a modern audience than it had upon its first release. So those who are watching it expecting the 'masterpeice' they are often told it is, prepare to be disappointed. Having said that, if you take Psycho of its pedestal as 'one of the greatest films of all time' (though through a historical perspective and in terms of influence, the title is richly deserved' and watch it treat it for what it is, a psychological horror, than the film remains very enjoyable. The acting performance put on by Anthony Perkins is highly believable and at times chilling and, if you have not been exposed to the shows twists and ending already, they still have the potential to shock and surprise even the most seasoned horror fan. On the subject of horror fans, it is worth a watch on that merit alone or for any fan of cinema, to see the film that has shaped cinema today more than almost any other film
-
Whizzer-21 October 1999Hitchcock was very fortunate to have cast the young Anthony Perkins in the leading role. At the time there were some other young aspiring actors who might have qualified for the part, namely: Michael J. Pollard; Jack Nicholson; Bruce Dern, Dean Stockwell, Victor Buono and Dennis Hopper. However, it's hard for me to imagine anyone other than Perkins playing Norman Bates with complete authenticity, it's seems the role was simply made for him and only him. Could you possibly imagine anyone other than Nicholson in the role of Randall P. McMurphy in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" or Dennis Hopper as Billy in "Easy Rider"? Keep in mind the introverted, insecure Mama's Boy was not really PSYCHOpathic as Hannibal The Cannibal was in "Silence of the Lambs" - a cold-blooded killer with no conscience - but rather criminally insane, plagued by schizophrenic delusions and seriously in need of multiple reality-checks. Anthony Hopkins did a wonderful job as the vicious Hannibal, and also as Corky, the schizo-killer ventriloquist in "Magic". I think he just might have pulled off a convincing Norman, but don't believe he was available back then. Oh well, so much for speculation...Perkins did a great job.
-
"Psycho" has gone down in Hollywood history as one of the greatest of horror movies, and even if you've never seen it (which I hadn't until today) you still feel a certain connection to the movie just on the basis of its reputation. That in itself can be a problem, because you're expecting a lot when you watch it for the first time. Unfortunately, for me at least, this didn't quite live up to its billing. It was a good movie, Alfred Hitchcock did a good job of directing with a number of what are today recognized as typical "Hitckcock-ian" touches, particularly with some very effective camera work, and basically the cast, headed by Anthony Perkins as motel owner Norman Bates and supported by Janet Leigh, Vera Miles, John Gavin and Martin Balsam (I would say in that order of importance to the story) did a fine job. Still, I was expecting something more.
First, I would call this more of a suspense movie with a touch of slasher movie thrown in than a horror movie, although that's admittedly through a modern lens. There are really only a couple of scenes that were "horrific" - one being the famous shower scene and one being the revelation of Norman's mother near the end of the movie. Otherwise you get a mystery - with the end surprise being fairly clearly telegraphed to anyone who was paying attention. The suspense starts with Marion (Leigh) stealing a large sum of money from the real estate agency where she works and running off, eventually coming to the Bates Motel to spend the night. Since the murder in the shower is the classic scene of the movie, you don't expect it to come as early as it does, and you don't expect that so much of the movie is going to revolve around Lila (Miles) and Sam (Gavin) as they search for Marion. Somehow, I expected to see more of Janet Leigh. Still, there is good suspense even if the surprise about Norman's mother is pretty clear from even a mile away.
What knocked this down a bit for me, though, wasn't the obvious solution to the mystery. It was the seeming need to offer a very in depth psychological explanation near the end of what Norman was all about. Maybe there was a sense that movie-goers in 1960 would need such an explanation. I found what was virtually a closing soliloquy (and a very long one) by Simon Oakland playing a psychiatrist who's called in to examine Norman to be tedious in the extreme, and largely unnecessary; filled with psycho-babble. Norman could have been explained - if an explanation was felt necessary - much more succinctly.
One can't diss this movie. There's really very little wrong with it, except that its reputation makes it very hard for it to live up to when you watch it. Undoubtedly, when watched with late 20th-21st century eyes (well conditioned to the point of being almost oblivious to slasher-type violence) it comes across as a bit dull, frankly. Equally undoubtedly, it didn't come across that way to audiences in 1960. Still, I found it to be a little bit of a letdown compared to what I was expecting of it. (6/10) -
"Psycho" was definitely a decent film, no surprise as it was made by the great Hitchcock at the top of his game. But the film was just too predictable and had too many laughs where they were not supposed to be.
I mean seriously. I can't speak for the crowds in 1960, but if anyone watches this for the first time today, it's pretty obvious where this entire picture is going after we go to the motel for the first time. The title itself is clue enough (he's a "psycho" after all) but really, I can't see anyone not guessing the big 'secret' of this flick way before the ending.
The film's main characters are cast superbly. Janet Leigh looks great and sexy, keeping the film from being too boring because she's so beautiful and good on screen. And of course Anthony Perkins does a pretty decent job. He doesn't give the awe-inspiring heart-stopping performance that fans of the flick seem to think he gives, but he is very good indeed.
The ingredients of the movie are put together very nicely, with the music and editing utilized for the maximum effect. Hitchcock definitely shows why he's known as such a great talent in these respects, putting it all together beautifully.
Unfortunately, the film suffers from too many laughs where they aren't supposed to be. When Norman first indicated he's a little "psycho," it's very funny watching him and his serious face as he gives clues he's such a nut case. With "Mother," whenever "she" talks (and yells), it's just too funny not to laugh at it. Even the scene when Norman carries "Mother" form her room is funny, as she talks her nonsense as he carries her out with her legs dangling.
And the "shocking" cellar scene almost plays like a comedy skit nowadays. When "Mother" is turned around in the chair, what you see just looks too funny not to laugh, and when Norman comes in, combined with his face, the way he was dressed, and the "Psycho music" at full bombast, I couldn't help but crack up for ten minutes at the hilarious combination of all this. Sorry to say, what was supposed to be such a frightening scene, is just too comedic to truly scare anymore.
It's unreal to think "Psycho" was voted one of the scariest films ever made. Who does this movie actually scare?
And the cop at the end, with his long-winded speech that sums up the whole picture (conveniently with the rest of the cast sitting and listening intently), is just too blatantly pandering that you just want to say, "ok, I think we all get it now!" You almost expect the cop to turn to the crowd in the theater and say, "ok, does everyone understand now?"
Even the very last shot of Norman is kind of funny, with the expressions he is making. The skull kind of saves the scene, but still.
"Psycho" is still recommended viewing for any old school movie fan, just to see Hitchcock's work. But the challenge is not to laugh at many certain scenes. The "Making of" documentary on the DVD is pretty decent (if not somewhat long winded itself) but the omission of deleted or rare scenes is definitely noticed. Janet Leigh is still very sharp though, and still looks great. -
darkjosh12 September 2000Most modern-day horror films make the killer to be an absolutely inhuman, grotesque, unimaginable monster in order to scare the audience out of its wits. Most of the time, however, these stereotypes create a generic murderer a raving, ranting, clearly demented psychopath. One of the few memorable cinematic killers that does not adhere to these restraints and cliches is, of course, Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter, whom manages to effectively cause the audience to recoil without such drek as the aforementioned devices.
Anthony Perkins' skillfully crafts his performance as Norman Bates, avoiding a ranting, raving, drooling, murder-happy, manic characterization; instead his performance as Norman is subtle, creepy, cool, and unsettling. He is brilliant; from his quiet conversations with Marion Crane amidst the stuffed birds, to his weasling wimpiness when confronted by Arbogast, his performance is so exact that it chills the viewer, all without the unnecessary disturbing images prevalent in more modern films (read The Cell, Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer).
Perkin's fine performance, a tight script, and Bernstein's classic score make Psycho a film that is now and will always be remembered as one of the pinnacles of the horror genre. -
Sleepin_Dragon15 July 2023Marion Crane steals $40,000 from her employer, running away from suspicions and her own guilt, she checks into The Bates Motel, a quiet, out of the way establishment, run by Norman Bates.
Oh boy, this film is quite something. Hitchcock truly was the master of suspense, but he proves he could do horror to, Psycho is the perfect fusion of Horror and Suspense.
What audiences in 1960 must have thought when they say down to watch this for the first time, when you think what had come before, this film truly was a game changer.
Pacing is sensational, it doesn't hold up for a second, the suspense element is tremendous, first time viewers are in for several shocks, when the big moments come, they are hammered home.
There are several sensational scenes, but that shower sequence, that rates as one of the greatest movie moments of all time.
Anthony Perkins delivers a performance which is nothing short of remarkable, he's so soft and gentle initially, but the switch up, is incredible. Why he wasn't Oscar nominated is beyond me.
The music, as big a character as Norman Bates himself, even on the opening sequences it's powerful and alarming, but the score that accompanies the killings, talk about hairs standing up on the back of the neck.
One of my top ten greatest film of all time.
10/10. -
the rock-1730 August 1999I am a big fan of Alfred Hitchcock. I have seen all of his movies, and think all of them are excellent. This one, however, is at the top of the food chain. Psycho is brilliant. Hitchcock gave this film excellent direction, and the acting was superb. Especially Anthony Perkins playing the role of Norman Bates. He always talked so fast, like he was nervous and anxious all the time. When he talked to Marion Crane about his mother, it gave me chills down my spine. "She just...she just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes." At that era, I don't think a better person could have delivered that line than Anthony Perkins. What makes this movie so great is its originality. Sure, there have been lots of films about "psychos," but this is pretty much the first one. The script was excellent, the acting was excellent, the direction was excellent, the cinematography was excellent, the music was excellent, the scenery was incredible, especially that dark old house where "Mother" lived. I could just go on and on about what a great movie this is. My grade: A+
-
llihilloh25 November 2000This is one of the best movies ever created and Alfred Hitchcock is one of the most intriguing film makers ever to live. (in my opinion) There's just so much to say about this film I hardly know where to start.
I first saw this movie about five years ago and wasn't impressed at all. Of course, I was about ten years old at the time. I didn't think that the famous shower scene was anything to frightening and the characters seemed a little boring. A little less than a year ago, I became very interested in the history of the film and not so much of the film itself. I read articles, reviews, anything that I could get my hands on. Then, Psycho was shown on AMC and I immediately thought that it was a masterpiece. Shame on me for not appreciating it sooner.
The film as a whole is spectacular, but I like to break it down into little sections. First, I was very surprised and impressed with the actors that played Marion Crane and Norman Bates. Janet Leigh isn't given to much exposure to the film since she is killed off in about the middle of it. I thought that she did a good but not great job. On the other hand, Anthony Perkins blew me away. Both Norman and Anthony are very interesting. Norman's life that is set up and shown to us is so well depicted that I can't imagine anybody else playing the part. All of the characters including Arbogast, Lila, and Sam are so well created.
Obviously, the plot is so unique and odd that you can't help but smile at it. A young woman on the run after stealing $40,000, and then accidentally falls into the wrong hands of a psychopath. It's great! The best thing is that nobody has ever done anything quite like it, and they won't be able to because then the magic will be gone.
Even though the ever so famous shower scene is said to be one of the most chilling death scenes in history, I think that it may be a little overrated. I love it as much as the next person, but it's not all that scary. Who said it was supposed to be scary? Nobody, I know. But the majority of the Psycho audience gathers it to be very frightening. I do still think that it is one of the greatest and shocking scenes ever.
The setting is very well set up as well. The Bates motel and house is so cleverly created that it brings a special atmosphere to the audience. It has something about it that you just can't forget.
Finally, that music played throughout the film is one of the most spookiest sounds I have ever heard. Great job to the music composers and to Hitchcock for this scary addition to the movie.
I think it's safe to say that everybody has heard of Psycho, but not everyone has seen it. For those of you who still haven't seen this amazing flick, go see it! It's a must see. -
doodles-215 October 1998I saw this movie as a teenager when it was first released in the 1960's. The promotional hype for the film ensured you did not have a clue what it was about and people who had seen the movie were asked not to reveal the ending. You went to see it anticipating something scary and thats what you got. Even 30 years later I still remember sitting in a dark theatre with my heart pumping and everyone, and I mean everyone, screaming their lungs out.
The movie set a new and very high standard in horror movies which I don't believe has ever been equaled. The characters were great, the direction perfect and the music, which I thought was absolutely fantastic, made this a classic.
I still get scared when I see it on TV. -
Smells_Like_Cheese16 November 2002Alfred Hitchock is the master of suspense and Psycho is probably his most famous film. Because, let's face it, one way or another, you have seen or heard of this film. It's been made fun of, been remade(unfortunately), not to mention that this movie's word will be spred from generation to generation. I came across it very young, my parents used to tell me how scary it was and how I wouldn't want to take a shower after watching this film. I didn't believe them, but when I watched it, I for the first time pulled the blanket over my head, it was that frightening! The thing that is so amazing about Psycho is how much of an impact it made, and understandably why it did. It ranked in over 60 million dollars at the box office, now this was the time where tickets were like 50 cents at the theater, now if you compare that to today, that's Titanic like money! It broke many taboo's, like this was the first film to show a toilet being flushed, isn't that interesting? My high school teacher said that her and her mom saw Psycho when it was first released in theaters and she actually ran out of the theater terrified! Alfred did so well keeping us glued to our seats with all his great twists! This was before The Sixth Sense, I mean, the ending is just such a mind blower! But I won't give spoilers.
Janet Leigh plays Marion Crane, a woman who is in love with a divorced man Sam Loomis. He says once he pays his ex wife off with the alimony, they'll get married. When Marion's boss asks her to put their most valued client's money, $40,000 to be exact, and bring it to the bank. She has other plans though, she takes the money for herself and flee's the city, but not before her boss sees her driving off. Shaky enough, huh? But she pulls over to get a nap in, and a police officer asks if she's OK, but she gets shaky and just wants to drive off. The policemen fallows her since she is so shaky and she ends up buying a different car. She gets caught in a giant rainstorm and pulls over to the Bates Motel.
She meets there, the owner, a pleasant and polite young man, Norman Bates. He lives in the house next to the motel with his mother. Marion checks in and Norman offers her dinner, they have a conversation mostly about his mom and Marion is concerned when she heard screams from the house that sounded like his mom. Norman gets on the defenses and asks Marion some questions as well, she says she is going to a "private island". Norman is very attracted to her, you can tell immediately, and she leaves knowing that she has to get out of the trap she set for herself back in Phoenix. As she's taking a shower before bed, a mysterious figure comes to the curtain and opens it stabbing Marion violently several times causing her to die. Norman cleans up the mess and gets rid of her body not knowing about her money and throwing that away too.
Marion's boyfriend, Sam and her sister, Lola, hire a private detective to find her. The private detective comes across The Bates Motel and doesn't end up coming back after trying to "talk" to the mother. Lola and Sam are concerned and decide to investigate for themselves, but will they end up coming back to the city alive? Psycho is just one of those movies you have to see before you die. It's one of the most important films of our time and will never be forgotten. It's a true treasure with terrific actors and a terrifying plot that will give you nightmares for weeks! Please don't let that scare you, I'm just having fun, but it is a freaky film! Watch it in the dark! It has a better effect, I think. Over 40 years and this film is still horrifying as if it were made today!
10/10 -
TheLittleSongbird9 December 2009I am a huge fan of Hitchcock, and have really liked all of the movies of his I have seen so far. My top 5 favourites are Vertigo, North By Northwest, Rear Window, Rebecca and this masterpiece. Before I saw this, I considered Vertigo as his masterpiece. After seeing this movie, I think Psycho outshines Vertigo.
Psycho is a film that you see once and never forget, and one of the few movies out there that has left me traumatised. The infamous shower scene is without doubt one of the most terrifying murder scenes in any film. When I first saw that scene on the 100 Greatest American Films, I was so terrified and I admit it I have never recovered. I had a similar experience watching the Disney film Sleeping Beauty with Maleficent enticing Aurora to the spinning wheel, and Mrs Gulch turning into the Wicked Witch in the Wizard of Oz.
The shower scene isn't the only effective or chilling scene in the film- in the events leading up to that scene I was biting my nails. The scene with the old woman in the chair also made me jump out of my skin. The whole of Psycho is terrifying, suspenseful and shocking. Two elements made this so. One was Hitchock's direction. The great director proves how truly great he is by directing Psycho in a masterful way, and manages to deliver the shocks when needed. The other is Bernard Hermann's music. What a creepy score! I loved his score for Vertigo and Miklos Rozsa's for Spellbound, but the high violin motif in the shower scene is the main reason why that scene in particular is so effective. I admit it, when I hear that motif, I start screaming. There is just something about it that makes your blood run cold.
Other pros are a good plot, a well constructed screenplay and beautiful black and white cinematography that is perfect in conveying the creepy mood. And the ending did surprise me. The acting though was exemplary, with Janet Leigh giving one of the deservedly most memorable female performances in a Hitchcock movie, and Vera Miles also giving a stellar performance. Stealing the film is Antony Perkins as Norman Bates, he didn't just play creepy, he WAS creepy, his face, his voice, his mannerisms.. in short it is one of the most chilling performances of all time. All in all, a Hitchcock masterpiece! 10/10 Bethany Cox -
mardalsfossen0111 December 2018I have never seen a movie that gave me this type of chills. VERY recommendable Horror/Mystery/Thriller!
This movie is so far more than the one bathroom scene everybody knows.
Watch it, you won't be disappointed! -
mightyjoeyoung7412 June 2005There is a difference between a serial killer movie and a good movie about a killer. To those sad few who think the movies like Gacy, Ed Gein, and Dahmer are of some quality, please burn those movies and simply watch a good movie about a killer ... PSYCHO! If you want to watch a good story about John Wayne Gacy, I'm sure one on A&E will be on any day now! Watch a documentary if you want the facts, if you would rather watch serial killers for entertainment, at least watch a movie with some quality and one that doesn't live off the infamy of the subjects last name!Check out my more in-depth review on my site timothynoble.com!
-
skiop16 January 20101960 was in a way the beginning of modern horror. Before that, horror movies featured monsters and mythical creatures, and monster movie was synonymous with horror movie. This all changed in 1960 with the release of this movie and the inferior, controversial, career-destroying Peeping Tom. These movies showed the worst kind of monster: a human being.
The plot follows that Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) embezzles money for herself and her boyfriend, Sam Loomis (John Gavin). She stays overnight at the Bates Motel, run by Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). It's not a surprise to anyone that Norman Bates is the villain of the movie. That is one of the primary problems with this movie: Norman is the only likable character in the entire movie. He's handsome, but shy and misunderstood, so he can't have a relationship outside of his voyeuristic fantasy life. This is a grave contrast to Marion Crane, a sleazy, immoral character.
All is going well to this point; it looks like it might get interesting, but starting with Marion's murder, it takes a 180. Her murder is one of the worst (not most brutal) I've ever seen. While the killer is supposed to be stabbing her to death, the camera jerks all over the place. Epileptics should definitely skip this part. John Carpenter did a far better, less obvious obscuring of graphic murders 18 years later in his Halloween.
The movie then goes from bad to worse, as we observe some of the going ons in a small town, with Sam and Marion's sister, Lila (Vera Miles). Here is where it gets really boring, showing us inconsequential pieces of small-town life. Unlike Halloween, which was based on the introduction of a madman into the everyday life of babysitters, Psycho's second half is little more than filler. There is essentially no connection between the first half and the second or between the second half and the first. It just meanders for a half hour or so.
The climax really comes out of nowhere. The special effects aren't that good (in fact, they're awful), but it is the best part of the movie: Sam tackling knife-wielding, cross-dressed Norman and the following scene providing a glimpse into Norman's mind, something that nothing before that had done.