Psicosis IV: El comienzo

Inspired by a local call-in radio show topic, the psychotic killer calls in and begins recalling his time as a youth, and as he goes through his life story and all of the mental torture inflicted on him he's able to uncover the horrible secrets that puts everyone around him in danger.

As the concluding chapter to one of the greater series around, it really could've been great. The main aspect that works here is the fact that the film gives away its plotline through flashbacks, but it does it while not being utterly confusing. That is a major feat in itself, since this is able to clearly keep the flashbacks and the modern time in a rather easy manner, a technique which rarely works since that mostly leaves the film a big, huge mess. The backstage antics both at the radio-station once they figure out the their caller and trying to keep him under control and the different stories that are told over the course of the interview, ranging from the first set of killings in the motel to the way the actual incidents he always described which give this some really fun moments that have always been apart of the franchises' legacy from the start, helped along nicely by the glorious psychological ranting that's included along the way. The other rather enjoyable aspect here is the final part of the film is a very creepy and suspenseful part, and it really hits the right mark on just about every angle being filled with chases, the strategic hiding places, and the Gothic-style thunder and lightning striking all throughout to make it a very creepy scene and end it on a high note. These are it's best moments as it's a rather flawed film, and it shows at times. The one biggest flaw is that it doesn't gel with the rest of the series all that much. These are big spoilers but the film mostly just makes up several events and ideas and places them together with new ideas and elements, which not always gel at all with most of what's been said about the series and the past. It might be a problem for the most hardcore fans as it's such a rapid departure, but there is a pretty noticeable shift that does occur. The other is that the first half of the film is really slow, as it concentrates on the life of Norman and his mother. It doesn't invoke any scares at all and mainly just seems to be there only for the building up of the story and not on making scares, which is rather crucial here. None of these issues make for all that creepy a series of scenes and it just causes the film to drag on with its simple one-note setup. Other than these two problems, it's not that bad a film.

Rated R: Violence, Language and Nudity.

This movie is excellent as far as content goes. Many things that were unexplained in the original are dealt with, and not in a way that seems ridiculous. All that happens in part IV could conceivably have happened, so that's good.

Anthony Perkins does a wonderful job of recapturing the essence of the disturbed Norman Bates, and Henry Thomas is very believable as young Norman. His performance completely illustrates the up-bringing of Norman by his unstable mother.

Good supplement to the original, I thought.

My father first rented this film in the summer of 1991. I was about ten years old when I watched it. I didn't understand most of it, but I liked it. I just re-watched it within the last few months as result of a sparked interest in both the movies and the books.

I liked how this film dove into Norman Bates's troubled past (that of course is an understatement). That was probably the best aspect of the film, not much else. I liked how Anthony Perkins once again reprised his signature role as Norman Bates after suffering that horrid humiliation from Psycho III. Olivia Hussey was wicked in this movie as Norman's mother. She must have taken lessons from Faye Dunaway in her role as Joan Crawford in Mommie Dearest. The way she yelled at him and stripped poor Norman of his manhood was just awful. But yet, she managed to stay human in certain scenes of the movie and not be such a demon. Henry Thomas did somewhat a good job playing Norman Bates as a teenager, but his performance lacked the geeky, child-like charm that Anthony Perkins had in the original film.

As for the rest of the actors, well, most of them aren't worth mentioning. Except for Thomas Schuster, who played Chet Rudolph, Norma Bates's midnight cowboy. His character was very cocky and rude, the kind of guy you love to hate. The kind of man mom would bring home and expect you to call dad, which in Norman's case was true. But that never came to pass, if you know the story line.

Director Mick Garris is no Alfred Hitchcock. He is no Richard Franklin either. But he does manage to deliver a good addition to the Psycho series. Not as good as Psycho or Psycho II, but good enough.

I first watched "Psycho IV" when I rented it on the early 90's. I was a big fan of Psycho II and I respected Psycho. Psycho III was a big disappointment so I thought that part IV would be at least, a decent slasher.

This pre-quel is not as bad as you may think. It explores Norman's origins and tries to reach a conclusion about his personality. To me, it worked. Norman is not the villain anymore and the director makes sure about that because he displays a victimized, sick Norman.

The ending is a perfect way to end the Psycho series which were far from being bad. Part II is excellent, unlike Part III which is a boring slasher flick. Part IV deserves the watch for it's ending and because it's Anthony Perkins' last hurrah as Norman Bates.

Psycho IV is a continuation of the Bates Family history. For the most part it's a prequel to the original 1960 film. I was always kind of turned off to this one because I feel they added way too much story to the original film as each sequel came out. Psycho II introduces us to Mrs. Spool who was really Norman's mother. But then Psycho III tells us, no, Spool was just a crazy aunt of Norman's. Now Part 4 adds so much to Norman's childhood that really makes it puzzling to follow any sort of true time line or plot line. We discover in this one that Norman's mother was truly sick, more sick then we could've imagined. It's alluded to in the other sequels that Norman had a "twisted" relationship with mother, but part IV goes into explicit detail as to how twisted it really was. The story is well done in part 4, but for the most part it's kind of pointless. Did we really need to see Norman have that sort of relationship with his parent? Probably not.

We get to see Norman functioning like a normal person. He has a new house and a wife. It's him calling into a radio show to tell his life story that causes him to become unhinged. Anthony Perkins and Olivia Hussey save this movie from being a total letdown. Their performances are top notch. Psycho IV doesn't go overboard with blood, we only see Norman kill I think one or two people in his flashback to growing up. I did like that the makers of this one added to the fact that Norman did kill people before Marion Crane was attacked in the famous shower scene. I liked those scenes with the teenage "Norman". It adds to the scene at the end of the first Psycho where the psychiatrist asks if there were any missing reports on girls in the area. It alluded to the idea Norman killed before, and I like that Psycho IV explores that.

Psycho IV is a prequel to the 1960 film, and adds a lot to the already twisted back story of the Bates clan. It's a good watch, but the ending is pretty weak. Only true "Psycho" fans interested in the back story of Norman will like this one. There aren't many murders committed in IV like in the second and third sequels.

6/10