Recensioni degli utenti

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.

If you liked the earlier sequels (with of course, the first one being inimitable) you may find this entertaining.

Tony Perkins seems deranged as ever, and there are some interesting conversations between him and CCH Pounder, (a radio shrink) as she tries to uncover what made Norman Bates the way he is...nature or nurture?... It may be genetic, but it could also have been his mother played by Olivia Hussey, a deranged woman who has an inappropriate relationship with her son.

Henry Thomas ("E.T." and "Beyond Obesession", among others) is sad and affecting as the young Norman Bates, who tries to be a good son to his mother, until she realizes he has become a man, wherein she begins to flip out.

Overall, for die-hard fans of the "Psycho" sequels.

After an onslaught of mass murder in PSYCHO III, Norman Bates is back....in a nice suburban home, with a lovely wife, and a new problem. He has to kill again.

Norman Bates, once again played excellently by the late, great and highly-talented Anthony Perkins, calls in to a radio talk-back show, where the topic of the night is matricide. Norman relives his past, and through these flashbacks we finally meet "Mother" -- played wonderfully by Olivia Hussey (man, she is SCARY!).

This film is a delightful surprise....there's not much bad to say about it. Henry Thomas captures "young Norman Bates" nicely, though I remember Norman Bates as being a bit more polite and friendly than portrayed here....but he still pulls off a good job as a mentally-abused and opressed psychopath in the makings.

Be aware, that this is not appropriate for anyone under the age of 15. No, it isn't "shocking," but there are strong incestual undertones. They are necassary, however, because they give more valid reasons for Norman's descent into sick obsession, rather than "He had a domineering mother," which we've all known for years.

PSYCHO IV has alot of character as a film, and is hard to forget. Perhaps the best sequel of the three.

Highly Recommended.

I find it amazing that Joseph Stefano, who wrote the screenplay, seemed to have forgotten EVERYTHING he wrote in the original Psycho screenplay in 1960.

Yes, this movie is interesting by itself. But no self-respecting Psycho-phile such as myself would ever find it satisfying, and it makes me cringe when I hear people say it's their "favorite sequel." It's full of so many plotholes and inconsistencies that the filmmakers oughta be stabbed in the shower!!

First of all, when did Mother Bates become this voluptuous vixen?? Weren't we led to believe in the original movie (and it's 2 subsequent sequels) that Mother was a crotchety old woman? Even in Psycho III, Norman defends her "actions" by saying, "She's just an old lady -- a sick old lady." Oh? Olivia Hussey sure looks pretty young and virile to me!

At the beginning, Norman says his father died when he was six. WRONG! In the original, he said he was five. Are we to assume he is/was lying? Then he goes on to explain that his father died from bee stings. Oh, is THAT how Norman's aunt "killed him in a jealous rage" as was revealed in Psycho III? Both explanations are pretty silly anyway.

In the original, Norman tells Marion that his mother's boyfriend (later revealed as "Chet" in this movie) talked her into building the motel. But in Part IV, the motel is already up and doing great business by the time Chet shows up!!!

And where the heck did the bathroom and closet in Mother's room come from??

And if Norman was really trying to "be" his mother, why did he put on the ugly old granny wig they buried her in?? According to this movie, his fondest memory of her was her "light-years long" brown hair!

Helloooo??? Mr. Stefano, were you SLEEPING when you wrote this screenplay?? Did you not even bother to go back and look over the original before you started?? Did you not think anyone would NOTICE??

Just a dumb, dumb, dumb movie. Once again, as he has done so many times before, Anthony Perkins single-handedly saves it from being *totally* unwatchable.

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.

So this is the first time we get someone else being Norman Bates. One of the most recognizable character names of all times. And while Perkins does reprise his role, there is a younger version in flashbacks here. And while maybe today they would have just CGI-ed Perkins and made him look younger, back in 1990 the technology wasn't there - which led to a young man being able to act in one of the most iconic and I guess disturbing roles out there.

Now Beginnings are always tough to sell. Most viewers do not care or need motivations for disturbed personalities. So to sell this is quite tough. The fact that it ignores the other sequels does not make it easier to access either. Maybe this is the weakest entry (when it comes to the ones Perkins was involved in), but it still is quite interesting if you allow yourself to be enarmoured by the movie and its backstory. Nicely told overall, with really good performances. Maybe if it wasn't Norman this was about, it would have been better received?

My least favorite of the series. CCH Pounder and Henry Thomas do a good job with their character's as does Tony Perkins however, the entire production seems on shaky ground, seems weak. Something very much lacking here.

I don't think Olivia Hussey was particularly well cast for this. She has the look but at times her accent comes out and there were moments when her performance just didn't seem sincere. Almost as if perhaps she herself wasn't quite sure what to do with the role. Nothing seemed fleshed out here. We almost learn too much and that is never a good thing.

But of all the sequels this one lacks the most bite, never really grabs you and shakes you. Psycho 2 and 3 are actually quite good and this isn't bad, there are some good moments, but nothing excellent.

Lastly, Norman's wife is very dry and cold. I can't imagine that she would make anyone think of marriage or sex, not even 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

For those who like to nitpick, there are tons of continuity problems in this film from what was established in the other films. As a fan of the series, I noticed many of them myself during the first viewing. But if you look past all that, this truly is a fantastic film. More of a sequel to the original than to "Psycho III" (although they sort-of mention the last one), we get the backstory on Norma Bates -- the overbearing mother that drove her son insane. Told through flashback sequences while Norman is reminiscing to a radio-show host, this film delved into the mind of the man who's remembered as a monster and made him more of a sympathetic character -- though I think everyone who likes the series already took sympathy on the poor man. And we finally get to see what makes a madman mad....

Perkins, as always, was in top form playing the character that killed his career. Olivia Hussey was brilliant in the role of Norma. Hussey's performance was riveting -- kind and loving one moment, cruel and loathing the next -- a schizophrenic delight to watch. Henry Thomas did a wonderful job playing the young Norman, showing what the character was like before he went totally over the edge. And CCH Pounder as the radio-host with a heart gives a fantastic performance as the woman who knew what was going on but was helpless to do anything about it....

Now on to the gripes that people keep bringing up.... Yes, there are inconsistancies with events as they were described in the other films. But he's on a radio show -- does anyone who knows they're on the radio really tell the whole truth? Olivia Hussey has gotten flack for her accent -- though they never really say anywhere that she's American. Granted, the woman who played her sister in II & III didn't have an accent, but she's not really mentioned here.... And Henry Thomas has gotten reamed for not acting enough like Perkins did in the original -- but the first film took place after the events that occurred in this one. People do change and by the time the first film took place, he was totally off the deep end. If you forget about II & III and don't mind the incest themes, this is a wonderful sequel.

Finally, why isn't this one on DVD yet? The other three films have been on DVD for a while, including the cropped-screen release of III. I'd like to replace my crummy Goodtimes Video VHS....

Psycho IV was the swan song for America's favorite nutcase, as Anthony Perkins died of AIDS complications only a year or so after making it. But the character goes out in style.

In many ways it appears this film ignores the events of Psycho II and III in favor of a "where is he now" story which leads into a flashback that in part explains why Norman went crazy.

Tony Perkins gives a sympathetic performance as Norman. You actually feel sorry for him, particularly at the end (which I won't give away). Has he reformed? Is he still crazy?

Olivia Hussey, meanwhile, is marvelous as his insane mother. She's still one of the most underappreciated actresses in movies today, and there's a scene of her standing in a downpour in which she looks exactly like she did when she played Juliet back in 1968. Her scenes with Henry Thomas are full of tension -- including sexual tension, making much of this film an uncomfortable viewing experience. But you don't watch a Psycho movie to relax, do you? Argentine-born, British-raised Hussey also has one of the sexiest voices ever put on film -- although it's a bit odd hearing a midwestern woman having a British accent.

The rest of the supporting cast is also good, especially CCH Pounder as a talk radio host who attracts the attention of Norman.

My only real disappointment is they should have shot the flashbacks in black and white, as several scenes intentionally reflect the original film (Norman spies on his mother making love using the famous peep hole and also stabs a girl in much the same way (music included) that he killed Janet Leigh in the original film).

A fitting send off for one of the most terrifying characters in cinema history. I must go now ... my mother is calling me.

PSYCHO IV has a now-married (!) Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) calling in to a radio program, and telling the increasingly concerned host (CCH Pounder) about his tragically twisted early life with his mother (Olivia Hussey). Her behavior helps us to understand how / why her son turned out the way he did. Henry Thomas plays young Norman as a tormented ball of sexual confusion.

P4 is an informative, sometimes shocking backstory, as well as a satisfying conclusion to the saga. It also offers a rather expected opportunity for Norman to be up to his old tricks once more...

The explanation by the good doctor at the end of the original Psycho is expanded, in laborious, uncomfortable detail, here, and to lesser effect.

Awkward TV-movie shows us in far too graphic of detail the abuse and trauma experienced by a young Norman Bates at the hands of his mother, and how that drove him to kill. The story is played out through a lengthy series of flashbacks, as Norman is a caller on a radio talk show about matricide.

Fairly interesting premise, but watching someone physically, sexually, and psychologically abusing their kid is extremely difficult to watch, and after a while, the viewer feels almost as traumatised as Norman.

The set design was fairly dull, too.

After Psycho II and III played with the mythology a bit, the original film's screenwriter, Joseph Stefano, threw both of those out and started from scratch. In his vision, Norman Bates has only recently been released from the asylum where he was sent after the events of the original Psycho and he's gotten married to a nurse.

One night, he calls into a radio show about men who murder their mothers and gives them his entire backstory about how life with his mother was pre-Psycho and what drove him to murder...and what might drive him to murder again.

Anthony Perkins gets to reprise his role as Norman Bates one last time and he's as great as ever. The flashbacks feature Henry Thomas from E.T. as Norman and Olivia Hussey as Norma, his abusive mother. Hussey is an odd choice for this role - a woman we've usually thought of as being old and confined to a chair, but she puts her own stamp on her and makes her a real, living and breathing woman with her own issues. Thomas is also wonderful channeling Perkins as Norman and gives him just the right amount of awkwardness.

Mick Garris delivers a film with visual flair and style, yet in this horror sequel, the lack of story is the most disturbing element.

This is a film overly fascinated with back story – something that should be expected from a prequel, I suppose – however, this is why it crumbles. The wonderful subtext that was present in the original Psycho film and even the sequels, is now front and center. The abusive relationship between Norman and his mother is no longer left to the imagination, but is now displayed clearly as a main feature of the movie. While getting a chance to finally meet Norma Bates piques our interest, it could never possibly hope to do justice to all the build up from the last three films. (An over- dramatic performance from Olivia Hussey doesn't help.)

The movie in some ways is representative of the Psycho franchise, an incredible opening, a slightly disappointing second act, an interesting and dazzling third, and a sputtering failure for the fourth.

Henry Thomas gives a tremendous turn as a young Norman Bates, while Anthony Perkins does as well as he can with the material he's given. Overall, however, these performances and the slick visuals can't carry this generally overacted and poorly written TV drama.

Psycho 4 is a pretty solid film. Norman is released once again following the events of the third film and is married. Norman calls into a radio show discussing matricide and recalls his childhood growing up and what drove him to kill his mother as well as the series of events that formed the Norman we know. It's an interesting watch and adds a lot to the psycho lore in the form of a sort of prequel. It's a pretty interesting watch with some tense moments and in keeping with the Psycho formula a great twist and solid ending overall. If you're reading a review for the 4th film surely you've watched the previous 3 and are intersted enough in the lore that you'll enjoy it. This film is a great way to bring closure to the Psycho franchise. Thank you Anthony Perkins for bringing life to such a great character.

For many, the idea of yet another sequel to PSYCHO(1960) seemed unlikely after the way 1986's PSYCHO III concluded. This is the first of many discrepencies from the first three films that plauge PSYCHO IV:THE BEGINNING(1990). It is extremely unlikely that Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) could have been released from the sanitarium, although introducing an "understanding" wife who persuaded all the right people to let him out again actually does work in a strange way. But PSYCHO IV doesn't simply choose to ignore the events of PSYCHO III, as there are a couple of references to it, notably when Norman mentions those last murders four years earlier, creating yet another inconsistency : PSYCHO III took place mere weeks after PSYCHO II (1983) and therefore was NOT four years before PSYCHO IV, more like seven. Add to this that Norman said in PSYCHO II that he was twelve when he poisoned his mother. In this film he is much older when the actual act is shown, which occurs in Norma Bates's bedroom (which suddenly has a bathroom door added that wasn't there years later, another inconsistency). Finally there's the biggest contradiction of them all : the cause of Norman's father's death. Killer bees? Did Norma lie to young Norman to cover up the "love triangle" drama dealing with Norma's sister Emma Spool that resulted in this man's death? Norman would have found out about it eventually, as it was shown in PSYCHO III it was all over the local newspapers when Roberta Maxwell's character was doing the research on it. My point in all of this? The filmmakers were either careless or did screenplay writer Joseph Stefano not take the initiative to watch the other films in order to prevent plot holes? You would think that even so that Anthony Perkins, who himself had DIRECTED the previous installment would have had these errors corrected either before or during production.

As for the film itself, there are many good things. Olivia Hussey is wonderful as Norma (although she should have lost the accent; Norma wasn't British) and it is quite a thrill to actually see what the famous Victorian house looked like when it was new in the flashbacks (It was YELLOW!) Perkins is good as usual in this role and the pacing, drifting back and forth between past and present is good. It's a terrible shame that the unexplainable inconsistencies make it hard to watch. C+

In this the last movie of the Psycho series, Norman has flashbacks to his youth and the circumstances that made him the man he became. There is a sort of bittersweet nostalgia to the memories and the circumstances as well as some loopholes in the continuity. A bathroom appears in mother's room where one never was and the fight scene takes away from the fact that Mrs. Bates and her lover were believed to have poisoned themselves in bed. I guess Norman could have dragged them back up there, but then you'd think that the police at the time would have found evidence of tampering with the murder scene. Well, this is a small town; they wouldn't have expected such a grandiose plot from such a then expected "nice young man." Olivia Hussey does a good job portraying the shrewish and demented Norma Bates and Henry Thomas of E.T. fame forgets that role to emote Perkins as Bates from the first movie. Putting an end to the Bates legacy sends Norman tripping through memories of his infamous past as the ghosts of his victims come to haunt him, but the ghost of Marion Crane herself is conspicuously absent as it was her who started the series by stealing his boss's money. Otherwise, this is a great end to one of Hollywood's most memorable move series.

An interesting and quite psychologically accurate telling of how Norman Bates became the world's most famous momma's boy. Henry Thomas was a good choice for young Norman. Olivia Hussey is VERY good as Mama Bates. Her reactions to Norman created an atmosphere for his schizophrenia to fester: the scene where she tickles him at his father's funeral is a good example. When he quite rightly giggles, she slaps him, even though she provoked it. Young Norman grew up not knowing how to react to situations. Plus the great love and fear for his mother laid the groundwork for his psychosis. It's really pretty good.

Basically the story of PSYCHO IV: THE BEGINNING is a Oprah-like talk back radio host (CCH Pounder) is discussing matricide with psychiatrist Dr Leo Richmond (Warren Frost) when anonymous caller 'Ed', who is obviously notorious screen killer Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) to tell his life story and threaten to kill again. The film is incredibly predictable and vastly entertaining up until the end, and some of the things Norman's mother did to him were terrifying.

The strongest thing this film has going for it is the great talents of Olivia Hussey as Norman's mother, and Anthony Perkins as Norman. While they never really have any screen time together, they still have a strange sort of chemistry that goes beyond the screen and sort of mould the film into what it is. Every scene one of them isn't in is boring and redundant and should have been left on the cutting room floor.

The biggest problem this film has is the ending. The film should have ended when Norman hung up the phone on Fran, but Mick Garris, creator of MASTERS OF HORROR, had to go right ahead and tie and tie the film up. With an open ending like that it could really strike terror in the film, but what Norman did was boring and over-Hollywood.

Still, this is not the worst film in the series as barely anything touches PSYCHO '98 as one of the worst films EVER. 4/10.