Psicose 2

Would Hitchcock approve of this? In general you can say: No. Why? Because he apparently did not like Sequels to his movies (maybe not in general either?). But when this was made, so many years after the original, Hitch was not around to object. And he could have since he had the rights to the original. Something that may not be too common, but was the case, because he did not get as much money as he wanted, but instead could have more rights to the movie, which in the end proved essential.

Now, would this make sense if Perkins did not reprise his iconic role? I would argue that it would have not. There were some initial doubts, but fortunately he came back. There is a bit of a twist and there are quite a few callbacks to the Original. Of course catching lightning in the bottle is not possible. But it is still a valid story and a good continuation.

If you are a fan of the original, I don't think you will be too dissapointed in this (as most have been with the other sequels). But one thing is for sure: Perkins seems to be born to play this role ...

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.

A Sequel to Alfred Hitchcock's Cult-Classic 'Psycho', 'Psycho II' lives up-to the expectations & turns out to be A Terrific Sequel! Also, Anthony Perkins once again plays Norman Bates, amazingly.

'Psycho II' Synopsis: After twenty-two years of psychiatric care, Norman Bates attempts to return to a life of solitude... but the specters of his crimes -- and his mother -- continue to haunt him.

'Psycho II' has a superior start, middle & end. The Thrills are top-notch! Tom Holland's Screenplay is gripping & very well-written. Richard Franklin's Direction is eerie & unsettling. Cinematography is good. Editing is sharp. Art Design is excellent.

Performance-Wise: As mentioned before, Anthony Perkins once again plays Norman Bates, amazingly. He's impeccable in here! Vera Miles is first-rate. Meg Tilly is impressive. Robert Loggia leaves a mark. Dennis Franz is passable.

On the whole, 'Psycho II' is a High-Class Sequel, that Thrills, Scares & above all, Entertains Big Time!

Of course, PSYCHO II can't hold a candle to Hitch's original masterwork, but then what film can? The surprise is that it turns out to be a decent little film in itself, purely because it isn't a slavish copy but instead a stand-alone psychological thriller that takes its plot in a different direction to most.

Instead of emulating the then-popular slasher craze of the 1980s, PSYCHO II plays out as a whodunit for the most part. Norman's back on the streets and back in his motel, and the grisly slayings start up once more. But who's the killer? Is it Norman himself, or the young, seemingly innocent girl (Meg Tilly) living with him? Could it be the returning Vera Miles as Lila Loomis, seeking vengeance for her sister's slaying in the original by setting Norman up? Or somebody else with an axe to grind?

While there is the expected bloodshed in this film, for the most part it's deeper than that, working hard to build up a creepy atmosphere. Anthony Perkins is on top form as his most famous creation, and he succeeds in making Norman a sympathetic protagonist; watching this guy losing his mind for the second time is truly a tragic occurrence. The presence of supporting players like the reliably sleazy Dennis Franz and the solid Robert Loggia help to make this an effective horror film all in itself.

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.