Psycho II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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