User Reviews (154)

Add a Review

  • *** This comment may contain spoilers ***

    ...read the introduction of Psycho III on TV. I was excited to watch Anthony Perkins's directorial debut, but I must say that this film had so much more potential to be better than it was.

    Psycho III in several ways, is better than Psycho II. It reveals much more about Norman as a person, not just a crazy old man with a mental illness. Anthony Perkins once told David Letterman of the Psycho franchise that "They're not really horror movies. They're tragedies." I really felt sympathy for Norman in this sequel above all the others. There is not a better word to describe everything about Norman than tragic.

    Psycho III contains a lot of 'familar' scenes. The bell tower scene at the beginning inspired from Vertigo, when Norman's 'girlfriend' Maureen fell down the stairs of the home, done exactly the same way Detective Arbogast fell in the original film; 'floaty' like. After Norman 'saved' Maureen from her attempt at suicide, they have a quick heart-to-heart, in which Norman says "We all go a little mad sometimes," a famous quote from the original. Clearly Perkins wanted to pay homage to the Master of Suspense.

    On to his performance - wonderful as always, but I can't help noticing that a lot of the Bates trademark movements and facial expressions were brought back in this sequel, some unnecessarily so. Sometimes it seemed as if Norman was parodying himself. Jeff Fahey as Duke, a musician with a cocky surfer boy personality was an interesting contrast.

    Overall, I think Perkins should be given more credit. Sure, it isn't perfect - but I think it has a lot more heart. I think if certain scenes were removed, it would have been a lot better, particularly the end of the film where he brings back the infamous grinning 'stare.' It counteracts with what Norman overcame only a scene ago. But Psycho III doesn't deserve such a low rating. It's definitely worth a look - but don't expect a masterpiece. 6/10.
  • Psycho 3 is one of those "it's not as bad as you think" type of movies, again, from what I was expecting, I thought it was going to be trash. But I bought the triple feature DVD pack of the Psycho sequels, I watched Psycho 3 last night, it wasn't that bad. The only complaint I have is that it felt a little too Friday the 13th to me, a little too slasher. From the first Psycho, we had more left to the imagination and a little more thriller/mystery, Psycho 3 doesn't use that same formula, but it still leaves you in chills. It is almost kind of a tribute in some of the shots and lines from the original, I think that is thanks to Anothony Perkins, it was interesting to see him direct the film, not the worst I've seen for a horror sequel, but the story itself is alright.

    Norman is back in business, running the Bates Motel, he needs a helping hand, so Duane Duke, musician bum, is his new assistant manager. When a former nun, Maureen, comes to stay in the motel, she reminds Norman of Marian Craine, he falls for her. But it's a question if his mother will let him be with Maureen. Duane is also bringing problems back into Norman's killing spree of bar fly's and a homecoming party.

    Psycho 3 is worth the look, believe me, when you've seen so many horror sequels that were just beyond horrible, this was a breathe of fresh air. The story does keep your interest, if you are into blood and gore, you will not be disappointed on that note. But I'm looking at this as to what should be a tribute to the first film, the slitting of the throat to me wasn't Norman Bates. But if you want to see the sequel, I wouldn't hold you back, the sequel is worth the watch if you are curious about the sequels, just this was a little too bloody for my tastes.

    4/10
  • Just finished watching the third Psycho after watching the first two and even if you can't say it's a bad movie it is not the same as the other two. The first one will always stay a classic. The sequel after so many years wasn't bad either. In the third one I just thought there were a couple of bad actors and lines so it can't be as good as the others. Anthony Perkins though, he will always do great as the psychotic Norman Bates. He has the perfect face for it and his acting is still as believable as in the other ones. To me they should just have limited it to the first two. Don't need to milk out the story more. But if you are a die hard fan you might just like this one as well.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Psycho 3 opens well enough with an incident to forever change the life of a distressed Maureen Coyle, and then ruins the moment with an unnecessary, not to mention unwanted, voice-over narration. Fortunately, the narration is isolated to the beginning of the film.

    Maureen is one of a number of characters destined to find the Bates motel, and the film begins slowly drifting into a sequel formula where typical victims (that reminded me of F13 fodder) come into Norman's path to be slaughtered.

    But nevermind that. Psycho 3 still understands the strength of this series lay in its unmasked killer, Norman Bates. And one of the more fascinating aspects of the film surrounds Norman and Maureen who has the same initials of that unfortunate girl from twenty years ago, Marion Crane. "Cabin one?!" an unnerved Norman says to his motel clerk, horrified that the circumstances today are reflecting those surrounding Marion from so long ago. And we, the viewers, note that the film is somewhat mirroring the structure of the original film - how Marion met her fate so early.

    Now the suspense comes from Norman's knowledge of his crimes, and knowledge of his compulsions, his sincere desire to prevent a repeat outing with the knife, and the audience knows Mother, whom doesn't like young girls in her motel, is up at the house. It's fascinating to watch how fear in Norman soul as the fates seem to unfold leading Maureen to the same end as Marion as she turns the water on and gets into the tub.

    SPOILER - And the moment of genius comes as "mother" snaps the shower curtain back to find Maureen in a bathtub of red water. And, ironically, the intended murder becomes a rescue from suicide. Then our disturbed, psychotic, Norman Bates becomes both a hero and guide to the suicidal girl, which needless to say, shakes Norman's world. As they talk in the hospital (later to share intimate moments in the motel) we see the sorrow in Norman, as he wishes for atonement by saving this girl, and that he genuinely cares for her. It places this recluse in a strange new territory, a territory that inspires him to try to fight his inner demons, to protect Maureen, and to fight against mother's compulsions to kill. END SPOILER.

    I never cease to be amazed at how sympathetic Norman Bates is even after knowing full well that he is a killer, even after seeing him murder, especially in this film when he's fighting so hard against what he is. We fear him, and yet pity him.

    As the film gears up for its climax, we watch as Duane has stumbled upon Norman's secret and attempts to blackmail him. And we're appalled that a perfectly sane (yet malicious) man would try to take advantage of another man who makes an honest struggles to stay himself. Norman is the killer, and yet Duane is the villain. I found myself leaning forward in my chair, hoping Duane would get more than he bargained for. I'd of been the little devil on Norman's shoulder saying, "Kill him. This one's justified." The tributes to the original, for the most part, did not draw attention to themselves as Psycho 2's did (thank you, Anthony Perkins.) I appreciated the return to the taxidermy aspect of Bates' character, the presence of candy corn that he was always munching on, Norman's reaction to discovering a body (identical to Psycho), and the smile at the end of the film that appropriately mirrored Hitchcock's ending.

    Although the narrative gets clumsy in places, I appreciated Psycho 3 for its faithful continuation of the Psycho series. Most of all though, in a genre that's content to regurgitate the killer's history and theories why he kills in more and more boring detail and call it a "plot", Psycho 2 and 3 gives Norman some genuinely new and original scenarios. In the Psycho sequels, we can see Norman grow and evolve, and feel the satisfaction that a new chapter had, indeed, been written.

    Then again, Psycho is perhaps the only slasher franchises that can continue to evolve because Norman Bates is a fully-developed, fascinatingly complex, and highly sympathetic character. He is the most mesmerizing killer to grace the silver screen in cinema history.

    Needless to say, neither Psycho 2 nor Psycho 3 will escape from the original's shadow. Even with the drop in craftsmanship, I was content with another stay at the Bates motel. What can I say? Norman is that much fun to hang around.
  • After having seen the wonder of the first Psycho, and the mediocre horror-film reminiscent of contemporary slashers that was Psycho II, I was looking forward to seeing this, the third installation to the series. I am not exactly disappointed by it, as I wasn't really expecting anything particularly good. It's decent, as Psycho II also was. It builds a little more on the twist of Psycho II(I won't reveal that here, for anyone who hasn't seen it), and though it did an OK job, I still found it to be too far-fetched to make sense, like the first one did. The twist in this one barely even made sense at all, and was almost totally unbelievable. The killing seemed more or less random, which wasn't a problem of the first, and(to the best of my recollection) not the second one, either. In this one, they just seemed to knock off minor characters whenever the film dropped in pace. The plot is reasonably good, quickly grabs your attention and keeps it throughout the entire runtime. It never really drops in pace for too long at a time, and you never lose interest in it. The acting ranges, of course Perkins pulls off the same excellent performance he also did for the first two. The characters were reasonably well-written and credible. All in all, this is a decent sequel. I recommend it to Psycho fans who want to see the entire series, but be advised that the film has a lot of ridiculous scenes, and the twist almost makes the very bad twist of Psycho II seem like the best twist since the twist of the original Psycho. 5/10
  • In my view, the first three Psycho films can only be compared to the Godfather trilogy; The first one is amazing, the second one is almost as good, and the third one isn't near as good but still enjoyable. Psycho 3 starts off as a full blown rehash of the first film, but after seeing the ending of Psycho 2, that is not a bad thing at all. Psycho 3 could somewhat be looked at as a rehash of the first film, but it still works out well as a sequel. Of course, Norman Bates is back to the way he was in the first film, which sets up Psycho 3 in a very good way. It really gets inside Norman's psychopathic mind, which is why Psycho 3 has a noticeably darker tone than the other two films. This isn't a terrible aspect by any means. I thought that it added a whole new dimension to the film without being nothing but a repeat of the previous sequels. Psycho 3 also adds plenty of teenage slasher aspects and a very large amount of gore, which also added to the movie in a very good way.

    Psycho 3 is directed by Anthony Perkins, who also played as Norman Bates in all 4 original Psycho films (not counting the remake directed by Gus Van Zant). Anthony Perkins gives out many Hitchcock style images that are more of homages than anything. The biggest homage that Anthony Perkins delivered the audience was the scene outside the ice box with the dead body inside. The police officer is reaching for some ice, and suddenly we see that the ice is bloody. This resembles a pure Hitchcock trait, which I really liked to see in a sequel to the master's masterpiece.

    I also felt that the performances from the entire cast did an excellent job, especially for the period and genre of the film. Psycho 3 has very solid character chemistry and a very solid cast, which I also thought helped the film out in a great deal. Duane Duke is a character that I really loved to hate. Several other aspects about the cast made me love this film for what it is.

    The negative aspects of this film include the loss of power on repeated viewings and the brief moments of cheese. I also felt that the ending didn't deliver spot on as the previous two films did. Whatever the case may be, Psycho 3 is still an excellent watch. It may not by any means be as good as the previous two films, but still a good sequel.

    Recommended.
  • Third and average sequel with usual ingredients as thrills , chills , a lot of killings and the sensational acting by Anthony Perkins . It deals with a runaway nun , Diana Scarwid , who flees from her convent . She arrives in Norman Bates hotel , and of course , things go wrong .The nun with the same initials as Marion Crane triggers Bates first into a mental replay , including some flashbacks of the famous showerbath killing . She stands at hotel along with a drifter , Jeff Fahey , who was hired by Norman to take care the place. Besides , a snooping journalist , Roberta Maxwell , is making questions and is really interested in Norman's case. Then , Norman falls in love for the gullible nun . While newspapers publicize : Spool is missing. Later on , at hotel takes place various ominous crimes and local Sheriff John Hunt : Hugh Gillin, starts investigating the weird events .

    The film is plenty of grisly killings , stabbing shots , some flasbacks and brief nudism scenes. Specially contains great load of blood and gore with slashings in Giallo style . At the beginning of the movie , kicking off with a suicidal nun that bears remarkable resemblance to ¨Vertigo¨ by Hitch , in fact , it results to be a recreation of the popular scenes of the Bell Tower . Series killer Norman carries out an extreme criminal spree , as always , while he revives his taxidermy hobby , so that his real mum is now stuffed and directing operations upstairs , ensuring that the course of true love is anything but smooth . Sadly , the stabbings here become distincly ¨Deja Vu¨ and the known screenplay is as full holes as the slashed corpses by Norman . As usual , Perkins gives a terrific acting in his classy character , giving another exhibition of Grand Guignol but controlled histeria , adding his fetching hint of a macabre wink lurking in the background . As Perkins will be forever Norman Bates . Here was used the original house set and the motel was partíally reconstructed. It packs an adequate and colorful cinematography by Bruce Surtees . As well as eerie and thrilling musical score by Carter Burwell, composed by means of synthesizer . Being regularly directed by Anthony Perkins himself in his film debut , as he sets too much store by Hitch's Catholic apologists, as he lumbers the picture with some religious cronies with simply get in the way .

    This Psycho series based on the original written by Joseph Estefano , based on novel by Robert Bloch are formed by the following entries : ¨Psycho¨ by Alfred Hitchcock with Perkins, Vera Miles , Janet Leigh , Martin Bálsam, Simon Oakland . ¨Psychosis II ¨1983, that was a pastiche to original Psycho , by Richard Franklyn with Anthony Perkins , Robert Loggia , Meg Tilly , Vera Miles. Psychosis III 1986 directed by Perkins himself. And ¨Psycho¨ IV 1990 by Mick Garris with Perkins , Henry Thomas , CCH Pounder , Olivia Hussey . Followed by a TV series from 2013 to 2017 , created by Anthony Cipriano , Carlton Cuse starrred by Freddie Highmore , Vera Famiga , Max Thierot , Nestor Carbonel, Olivia Cooke.
  • mcfly-3120 July 1999
    My fave of the series, this one has a bit more going on than last time. There's also a lot of throwbacks to the original, like Leigh look-a-like Scarwid getting Perkins all aroused, Maxwell investigating Perkins kind of like Balsam in the first, and a stabbing scene very similar to the infamous shower one, with the exception being this times its in a phone booth. This entrys a little more routine than part 2's, with that being a whodunnit. Here, you know whodunnit and basically the characters are more interesting than the story. You wouldn't know Perkins directed with it looking pretty much like any movie youve ever seen with capable photography. And as in the classic part 1, he has it end with his wacko grin glaring up at us. Of course.
  • It's strange how Hollywood takes a brilliant, classic movie like Psycho and trots it out ala Mrs. Bates, lifeless and stuffed with sawdust, for a few cheap thrills and a quick buck. "Psycho" is now an official Hollywood cash cow, a franchise to be exploited and run into the ground. Norman Bates action figures and souvenir ash trays cannot be too far behind.

    The movie revives Norman, his Mom, and their haunted house hotel and serves up victims left and right. Between the incessantly noisy students, the crazy nun, the brassy reporter, and the guitar-playing loser, Norman's cup runneth over in the slasher victim department. The scene with the naked guitar player, doing his seductive "lamp dance" has to be seen to be believed.

    Meanwhile, Norman putters around, not sure whether he's a killer, a victim, or a necrophiliac (he plants a big kiss on a dead body in one scene). Despite his legacy of madness and murder, people are drawn to his house like it's an amusement park ride. The nutcase nun does the Martin Basalm jig down the stairs. The reporter inexplicably pokes around the dark house until she encounters Norman and then runs around, shrieking to him the "truth" about his past while he chases her around manically with a knife.

    The experience manages to be both laughable and incredibly tedious rather than scary or suspenseful.

    Just kill 'em all, Norman, and put us out of our misery already.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    More Psycho movies? Oh GOD, MOTHER, SEQUELS! SEQUELS!
  • Leave it to Anthony Perkins, probably the only person who knows Norman Bates better than creator Robert Bloch or director Alfred Hitchcock, to create and have a hand in Norman's descent into madness and subsequent struggle for normalcy. After the circumstances that drove him mad in the last movie, he tries to return to sanity by befriending and romancing another disturbed woman he considers his soul-mate. Diana Scarwid has a fine role as a near clone of the Janet Leigh character as she herself flashes between reality and confusion. Norman is her hero, and she is his queen in this unrequited love story. Jeff Fahey is the jerk and opportunist who throws the wrench in the works just as Norman tries to forget mother and what she does to him. The murders are gratuitous as if to compete with Jason and Freddie and there is some tongue-in-cheek dark humor directed as the series as Murphy proves time and time again: what can go wrong, will.
  • slimer848923 October 2017
    Warning: Spoilers
    I don't get it. Wherever I go, it seems like everyone is bashing Psycho II, yet praising Psycho III. Even Roger Ebert liked this movie... Why?

    This is pretty much the first film, but with tons of gore, in color, and made in the '80s. Don't believe me? Well, we've got Norman looking through the peephole, we got a scene that imitates the famous shower scene, and even part of the plot deals with a woman who resembles Marion Crane and shares the same initials as her. Also, this film tries to do WAY too much. Okay, so we got an ex- nun on the run because she doesn't believe in God, some future rock star who applies at the Bates Motel, a snoopy reporter trying to dig up information from the previous two movies, and Norman Bates thrown in there somewhere. A lot of things didn't make sense, like why the aforementioned future rock star suddenly went crazy. Usually, with an unexpected crazy person, there are subtle hints. But not here! He just randomly goes crazy. Also, why did the Marion Crane lookalike suddenly go back to the Bates Motel? She pretty much found out from the reporter that Norman is a nutcase, so that's what drove her away. Then, in the next scene, she's talking with a priest or something, saying, "I must go back!" or something. It would have been interesting to have her reasoning for going back because Norman is proof of God existing, since he's like the Devil, but as I recall, the lady didn't have a motive to go back. She just randomly did it. And then, we have Norman going on a rampage and killing people. Oh, where have I seen that before? I did find the ending quite surprising, as (spoiler alert) Norman actually decapitates the head of his mother's corpse, suggesting that he is now set free from his demons. But then, at the last second, they cop out and have Norman pull that evil grin again. In the first one, it was terrifying. But here, it feels so tacked on, just like the peephole scene.

    But there were some things I liked, like how some of the supporting characters from Psycho II return, like the cop who was sympathetic with Norman. But this guy does have one stupid line of dialogue, and that comes at the end, when Norman is finally being arrested. He's like "I was for you, Norman. I believed in you." Really? This is the second time this has happened in recent times and you still believed in him. True, Norman wasn't really behind the killings in Psycho II, but still. He should have been feeling a bit suspicious by this point. Also, I liked how Anthony Perkins took over the role as director. I mean, if there's anyone who knows Norman Bates, it's him. And finally, I liked how they immediately discard that stupid retcon from the end of Psycho II, and Norma's sister never gave birth to Norman. But those weren't enough to save this movie.

    So, Psycho III. It's an overrated sequel that doesn't really do anything new with the plot. I don't recommend it.

    Also, am I the only one who thinks the poster looks silly? Norman has the keys in his hand and he's making a goofy face that looks like he's saying, "Look! I got the keys! Guess what I'm gonna do now!?"
  • kane-33 July 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    The other negative reviews seem a bit harsh to me. Anyone who enjoyed the first sequel or Anthony Perkins' performance in either of the first two films will have fun watching the third installment. Not many films compare to the Hitchcock original and the sequels to PSYCHO are no exception. But anytime Anthony Perkins takes the screen as the matricidal Bates we the audience are going to be in for a treat.

    Slasher enthusiasts and Norman Bates fans can rejoice as Perkins brings our favorite motel owner into the 80's. While there isn't quite enough gore for PSYCHO 3 to be considered a true slasher film, Perkins, as director, makes a bold choice to bring Norman and his terrible habits into the 80's while maintaining the charming weirdness in character and setting of the original and even its first sequel. The three films definitely feel like they take place in the same world and the returning characters (or relatives of deceased former characters) help keep the story arc flowing with a consistent feel.

    The plot this time revolves around a nun, Maureen Coyle, who gives up her vows to God and finds herself hitching a ride with sleazy musician Duane Duke, played by the always entertaining Jeff Fahey. We all know which motel they're going to end up at and it isn't long before Norman meets Maureen in the diner and notices her initials, the same as Marion Crane's, on her suitcase. It's psycho love at first sight.

    Meanwhile, Duke gets a job working at The Bates Motel front desk despite Norman's obvious disliking of the greasy loner. Add to the mix a bunch of rowdy football fans and what you'll eventually get is the largest body count in a PSYCHO film yet and since.

    The gore, although minimal, is effective and a severed hand gag will have you laughing even though your stomach is turning. I'll never look at ice cubes the same way. Perkins also takes a stab at a shower-scene-type killing within a phone booth. It's creepy and violent like the shower sequence but, admittedly, loses some of its edge in the day and age of cellphones.

    Filled with religious and sexual metaphors and ripe with sardonic humor and dark sarcasm, PSYCHO 3 is just plain fun to watch. Anyone in love with Perkins' betrayal as the truly loony Norman Bates needs to give the movie another chance. To say it doesn't hold up to the original is moot since so few films (in any genre) hold up to Hitchcock's masterpiece. Try to forget its untouchable origins and enjoy the flick for what it is… a better than average 80's horror movie featuring the overwhelming presence of one of film history's greatest on screen icons, played by the only man who could and ever should, Anthony Perkins.
  • kyle_furr19 April 2004
    Better than the second one but nowhere as good as the original. This one also has Anthony Perkins as a first time director and he does a pretty good job. The movie stars out with a girl who is about to become a nun loses her faith and start to scream that their is no god. She tries to kill herself but winds up killing another nun instead. She leaves and is picked up by a musician headed to L.A. and he is played by Jeff Fahey. He winds up with a job at the bates motel and she becomes friends with Norman Bates. A reporter is snooping around trying to find out about Norman and if he is still crazy. There are a lot more killings and more nudity than the second one and Anthony Perkins does a pretty good job as star and director.
  • "Psycho III" is actually a slight improvement over the routine and muddled second part; it has much better production values, Perkins gives a sly performance and his direction is often stylish. Still, it often feels like a typical 80's exploitation film, because of its explicit violence and nudity. And it contains some undoubtedly campy moments - Norman asks his "mother" to stop "laughing at him", while the only one who is laughing in the room is the famous "Woody Woodpecker" in a cartoon that's on TV at the time. "Psycho III" is NOT for Hitchcock followers, but for those who want to waste some time.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Okay. I will be very honest. It took two times to get me to like this film. The first time I watched it, I thought it sucked. The second time, however, it was terrifying. Anthony Perkins puts on a great performance as Norman Bates, again. This was not as good as Psycho II, but it is a great addition to the Psycho series, and an okay film on its own. You DO have to watch the first two Psycho films to understand this one, and you have to be quite a Psycho fan to enjoy it, but I liked it. Rent first, then buy.

    There were several aspects of this film I liked, many I did not like. This film has far too much nudity for a Psycho film. There is one scene that I feel belongs in a porn film, it is forgivable, however.

    The film was suspenseful and frightening, Norman on the brink of insanity as always... The Bates family tree gets more twisted around with each sequel. I like this movie, but it is definitely not for everyone.

    One big point that almost kills the film is that, at first, it seems like a rerun of Psycho II, I also thought that there were far too many flashback scenes.

    The end of the film sells it and makes it all worthwhile and scary.

    POSSIBLE SPOILER

    We finally get to see Norman talking with "Mother" in her voice, and see Norman dressed as mother again. The end was liberating. Norman is set free from Mother's evil...or is he...?
  • Not really sure what to make of this one, I didn't think was as good as the first two movies in this series.

    I loved the way the movie started as really grabs you in straight way and then we seen Normal Bates back in Hotel again,

    It's felt it more of re-harsh of first movie in some parts of the movie, with 80's Vibe to it instead.

    There were some really shocking moment. that didn't see coming in this movie, which I really liked the out come of them.

    I don't why but I felt sorry for Norman in this movie, as the past get coming back to haunt him and Finally came though in the end.

    Some of the deaths in this movie were really bloody at times and again , which really annoys him, those silly stairs death, Who falls down the stairs liked that!

    I did like the how the movie ended as he was finally free but I didn't really under stand the last scene Spoiler: (His in the police car and then he saying he finally free and then takes the dead Hand out of his pocket)

    I thought acting in this movie was very good from the whole cast

    I still think was very decent sequel but not as good as the other movies.

    So I going give this movie 5/6 out of 10
  • Toronto8512 April 2011
    Psycho III is a decent sequel to the series, but fails to equal the dread and suspense the first two managed. Norman Bates is officially insane once again. In part two we questioned his sanity up until the ending, but in this third Psycho there is no doubt he is crazy. It starts off with an unstable nun named Maureen who, while trying to commit suicide, accidentally causes the death of another nun. Shunned by the convent, she accepts a ride from a sleazy musician named Duke (Jeff Fahey). She escapes his sexual assault by jumping out of the car into the pouring rain. Duke ends up at the Bates Motel and accepts a job from Norman to look after the place during the day. Maureen ends up at the motel too and is startled to see Duke. Norman see's her and immediately thinks of Marion Crane, the woman he killed in the shower in the first Psycho. Norman becomes unhinged at the sight of her and his murderous rampage continues leading up to a satisfying ending.

    Psycho III adds a lot more gore and a lot more nudity, appropriate with the times I assume. Horror in 1986 was filled with blood and sex, so I guess Psycho III felt it had to compete with slasher hits like the latest Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street sequels. The gore and sleaze just doesn't work with a Psycho film though. I have nothing against that in horror, but it makes Psycho III a lesser film when compared to the second one. The pace of this one however is very good, and there certainly isn't a dull moment. It's fun and interesting to watch Norman lose his cool, and Anthony Perkins played it brilliantly as always.

    Psycho III was directed by Perkins, and overall was a pretty good horror flick. There is a religious undertone with the character of Maureen who was a nun before meeting Norman. The murder scenes are very gory and realistically done. There is also a cringe worthy scene where the sheriff eats a bloody piece of ice. The ice is of course bloody because Norman stuffed a body in his new Bates Motel ice machine. Psycho III is a decent addition to the series and also adds to the back story of the Bates family. Roberta Maxwell does a good job as the grating reporter and Diana Scarwid plays the role of the naive Maureen perfectly.

    7/10
  • Anthony Perkins owns the character of Norman Bates. He could have made 20 sequels to Psycho and he would be fascinating in every second of every one of them. There is a scene where he is walking to a room at the motel and he thinks "mother" is there and the look on his face is priceless, it's a sort of bemused haze.

    The movie has elements of a dark comedy and ridiculous camp. There is a scene between Perkins and Jeff Fahey that is absolutely hysterical.

    Honestly, I'm not even sure how I feel about this movie. On one hand, I don't think it's good but, I find it very watchable. For me it exists in the bad/fun bad arena.

    Ultimately, I would recommend it to someone who wants to watch an actor own a character like few actors have ever owned a character. Have a few dark laughs and shake your head at the mismatched parts.

    Psycho 3 might just work for you.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Let's see, he kills his girlfriend in the original Psycho because he adores his mom and believes she told him to (Ed Gein, anyone?) and in this one he sends his (hot) new girlfriend to a one way trip down the stairs on accident. This scene could be better but wasn't too bad. Many sequences were nicely done ( a cop sucking on bloody ice cubes, a phone booth murder referencing the shower scene in Psycho) and the acting was good for the most part. Psycho III did what few slasher movies do for the killer, successfully make the killer sympathetic instead of pathetic. However i didn't personally care for the character of Duke as he seemed too one dimensional for a major character. This is a must-see for Psycho fans and slasher fans.
  • kosmasp22 May 2019
    While Hitchcock did not think of any of his movies getting a sequel, after his death all prohibitions went out the door. You may feel that this does the original disservice, Anthony Perkins felt otherwise. And while I don't know how anyone will perceive this, one thing is for sure: it does not hold a candle to the original. It still tries to do it service as much as possible. And anything that is or was made regarding Psycho tried to do it as much service as it could (maybe with the exception of the Bates Motel movie).

    So while this isn't a masterpiece, it is a decent movie, if you can detach yourself of the baggage. Which of course is hard, because you are reminded constantly. Performances are good and for the first time there is quite a lot of blood and also nudity (which may be one of the weirdest things I reckon). So whether you like whatever Perkins did (performance and directing wise), it is part of the Psycho Legacy - no pun intended
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Well after Psycho 2 what else could be done? What else do you want to know about Norman Bates? Well this is the first time we see Norman totally demented and out of control. He is not a mystery like in the first film and it is not a who done it the second was - we know Norman is dressing as his mother again and he has gone bonkers!! He now has a corpse back he calls mother and the Motel is open for business again. Anthony Perkins directs this one and does a fine job of it too. This movie is crazy, sick and twisted - its directed almost from the point of view of Normans' sick mind. Mother points at her victims and sits up in bed, Norman kisses a corpse and almost gets his rocks off. Tony Perkins direction uses a lot of strong colour almost like Suspiria in parts and weird images also the murders are gruesome - particularly the murder in the phone box which is very effective. Although its no where near as good as the first two it is fun in a twisted sort of way and includes a lot of black humour. Norman has totally gone in this one and I thought it was quite entertaining.
  • preppy-321 August 2001
    1/10
    Why?
    OK--"Psycho" is an acknowledged classic horror film. "Psycho II" was, surprisingly, a very good sequel with an intricate plot. They should have stopped there. This needless third one has a bad plot (which contradicts the second one), lazy acting (Perkins was very sick when he made this...and it shows) and shoves blood, gore and nudity in your face. The first one had none of that and the second one used it sparingly. Compared to this Gus Van Sant's remake of "Psycho" looks like a masterpiece. Some of the dialogue in here was laughably bad and the scene where someone sees Norman as Mother as the Virgin Mary was almost enough to make me run screaming from the room. Why did they do this? Perkins must have been desperate for the money. Best forgotten. Probably the worst horror sequel ever...and that's saying a lot!
  • Derided and ridiculed as just another 80's slice em' and dice em' gore-fest, this film has been criminally overlooked and underrated for over twenty years. What the vast majority have seemed to miss is the subtlety and richness of a beautifully lensed film which provides one of the most chilling atmospheres to a mainstream horror movie.

    Anthony Perkins showcases just how adept he is both in front of and behind the camera in his directorial debut, and it is a crying shame that we didn't get to enjoy any further nightmarish visions. Re-watch this work of genius and see for yourselves.

    10/10
  • The trouble with these sequels is that they invariably get compared to the Hitchcock original. You need to look at them separately and judge them that way.

    Psycho III is much better than Psycho II. At least there is more TITillation, and even a hint of necrophilia.

    Anthony Perkins not only stars again, but this time he directs, and he gives us a film that keeps us interested.

    Diana Scarwid, despite the fact that she has an Oscar and Emmy nomination to her credit, was not very interesting. But, at least she got Norman Bates to act a little human.

    Jeff Fahey (Grindhouse) was little more interesting. Juliette Cummins was definitely TITillating. Too bad she left the business.

    Check it out.
  • Alfred Hitchcock, the director of the incredible original "Psycho" film, despised the very concept of sequels and refused to make even a single one during his film career. Movies like this are exactly why.

    For a basic plot summary, "Psycho III" sees Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) still running his hotel business and still harboring the embalmed corpse of Emma Spool, his supposed "real mother". When a young nun (Diana Scarwid) who bears a striking resemblance to Marion Crane needs a place to stay, Norman takes her in and clashes with "mother" once again.

    The strange thing about this movie is that, storyline-wise, it really isn't all that bad. Basically, it isn't just bad for bad's sake, and director Perkins does a great job of re-creating the continuity from "Psycho II" and making this film feel like part of the anthology.

    The problem, though, is that "Psycho III" doesn't know what kind of flick it is. It tries to be a slasher film for a while, but the overall Psycho narrative doesn't lend itself to that. It also tries to look at Bates' insanity from a new perspective, but only ends up muddying the waters even further. Plus, a religious aspect is introduced into the narrative, but doesn't accomplish anything in terms of character development.

    Thus, this seems to me to be a film that started off with great intentions, but quickly descended (production-wise) into a nightmare. A few moments are decent enough for the franchise fans to keep watching, but others will just find it stupid. This effort can easily be skipped in the series.
An error has occured. Please try again.