burgerkalif
Lifetime Total
1+
IMDb Member
19 years
Reviews
Psycho II (1983)
Bates is movie history's most likable serial killer
I rated this 6/10. I would have scored it higher, if the movie itself focused more on Bates' internal battle -- I really do find Bates to be a very likable, complex character that struggles SO hard to maintain his sanity, staying HIMSELF, and keeping mother's controlling abusive voice at bay. He really honestly don't WANT to act out his internal killer -- he really is a genuinely good guy, it seems!
I really don't care for the gore and violence -- it serves a point, as this is, after all, a sequel to one of the greatest horror movies ever made. I guess you can't really walk in the footsteps of the late great Hitchcock without having SOMEONE butchered with a knife ;-)
The many twists and turns the plot has to offer are, well, cleverly written, but also a bit confusing. They'll keep you guessing to the end, who did it etc., and as such, Psycho II is a solid horror thriller, with a very interesting main character -- I just wish they had elaborated more on his troubled mind and quest for maintaining his sanity, instead of sidetracking us with a sometimes a tad too complicated plot.
All in all, this movie is sort of a product of it's time -- teen slashers were HOT at the time and Psycho can't really deny its adherence to the ongoing trend back then. But Norman Bates is no Freddy Krueger. He is a good guy, struggling to remain sane -- and really is the hero here!
Psycho II is a horror thriller, that COULD have been a very moving psychological drama. Instead we get a little bit of both, so I have a little mixed feelings about it. So my final verdict is, as mentioned: 6/10
I really don't care for the gore and violence -- it serves a point, as this is, after all, a sequel to one of the greatest horror movies ever made. I guess you can't really walk in the footsteps of the late great Hitchcock without having SOMEONE butchered with a knife ;-)
The many twists and turns the plot has to offer are, well, cleverly written, but also a bit confusing. They'll keep you guessing to the end, who did it etc., and as such, Psycho II is a solid horror thriller, with a very interesting main character -- I just wish they had elaborated more on his troubled mind and quest for maintaining his sanity, instead of sidetracking us with a sometimes a tad too complicated plot.
All in all, this movie is sort of a product of it's time -- teen slashers were HOT at the time and Psycho can't really deny its adherence to the ongoing trend back then. But Norman Bates is no Freddy Krueger. He is a good guy, struggling to remain sane -- and really is the hero here!
Psycho II is a horror thriller, that COULD have been a very moving psychological drama. Instead we get a little bit of both, so I have a little mixed feelings about it. So my final verdict is, as mentioned: 6/10
Body Snatchers (1993)
Poorly scripted and way too fast-paced
Meg Tilly is phenomenal, as well as disturbingly sexy, as the cold and distant pod woman. Otherwise, this movie is silly, poorly scripted, way too fast-paced, has characters you never really care for, nearly none of the cleverly, slowly built-up paranoia and tension that made the '78 version so damn effective and engaging, yeah the list goes on ..
First of all, choosing an army base as the location for the movie was a downright ridiculous idea .. I mean, soldiers are pretty much supposed to be cold, adhere strictly to conformity and suppress individuality already .. So how are you gonna tell the difference between humans and pod people?? This kinda defeats the entire purpose of the film, I think ..
Then there is the pacing .. It simply moves on way too fast and abruptly. When Meg Tilly is transformed, no one except the little boy who saw the transformation first hand seems to notice it -- only when it becomes alarmingly clear that something isn't at all as it should be (when she gives her famous speech: "there's no one like you left"). Where is the growing suspicion, the fear and self-doubt that the '78 version portrayed so well? I guess there was no time for that in this version, as it moves from 'building-up tension' to 'fast paced action with no time to think' like all of a sudden, and way too abruptly .. And no time to actually get to know your protagonist family and learn to care for them .. Almost the entire family is wiped out by the pod people, and it didn't really get to me .. Unlike the '78 version, where both Elizabeth's and Matthew's transformations were absolutely horrifying ..
4/10
First of all, choosing an army base as the location for the movie was a downright ridiculous idea .. I mean, soldiers are pretty much supposed to be cold, adhere strictly to conformity and suppress individuality already .. So how are you gonna tell the difference between humans and pod people?? This kinda defeats the entire purpose of the film, I think ..
Then there is the pacing .. It simply moves on way too fast and abruptly. When Meg Tilly is transformed, no one except the little boy who saw the transformation first hand seems to notice it -- only when it becomes alarmingly clear that something isn't at all as it should be (when she gives her famous speech: "there's no one like you left"). Where is the growing suspicion, the fear and self-doubt that the '78 version portrayed so well? I guess there was no time for that in this version, as it moves from 'building-up tension' to 'fast paced action with no time to think' like all of a sudden, and way too abruptly .. And no time to actually get to know your protagonist family and learn to care for them .. Almost the entire family is wiped out by the pod people, and it didn't really get to me .. Unlike the '78 version, where both Elizabeth's and Matthew's transformations were absolutely horrifying ..
4/10