Taiyo

This movie proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no unified God of Movie Production. This movie had one thing (and only one thing) going for it -- it is the most hilarious, most badly written, and most poorly made movie in years. Most of the cast isn't bad -- actors that were obviously temporarily insane when they made the movie -- but Vanilla Ice is out of his overly-shaved mind. The clothes, the hair, the sunglasses, the "how's the hoise" accent...cheese beyond belief! Of course, it's true what they say -- you haven't lived until you've seen this movie, if for no other reason than that you will need something to compare other movies to. "Well, 'Wayne's World II' wasn't great, but it was nowhere NEAR as bad as 'Cool as Ice'."

Why were people in awe of this guy? I'm sorry, but "Johnny Owen" was a freak. If that guy showed up at my door, I wouldn't be amazed, or stand-offish. I wouldn't be able to talk, because I would be rolling on the floor in hysterics. It's bad enough the movie was a loss, but did they have to destroy every illusion I had about small town bands? The whole point of the movie seemed to be to bolster up Vanilla's dying career, and expose the world to phrases like "schling a schlong". I can't spoil the plot for you because, basically, there was none. A lot of dancing...or at least, what they apparently thought was dancing...well, at least Kristin Minter and Deezer D. went on to "ER" together.

All that aside, I have to admit, I watched this movie three times. I was laughing too hard the first, crying too hard the second, and watched it the third time to show someone else how inane it was. Stars? Two and a half out of five, less if VIce ever does a movie again.

And it's virtually guaranteed that Hitchcock is. This movie is a poor imitation of the original. The original "Psycho" may not have been the utmost of a psychological thriller, but the remake was a joke. Poor unfortunates all over the country who haven't seen the original are touting the remake as a 100% copy, scene-for-scene, word-for-word, idea-for-idea. Nuh-uh!

Anne Heche was tolerable in the role of Marion Crane, but Vaughn just wasn't even funny as Norman Bates. The whole point of the original was to set Norman up as the quintessential tragic hero. Vaughn is nothing more than a creepy, perverted little loser who lives with his mother's corpse. He has no personality, no zing, and no depth. Even Leonardo DiCaprio, over-used and under-talented as he is, would have been a better choice for the role.

Why even bother remaking the film? Did we really need a close-up of a dead Anne Heche with stab wounds yet no blood? An extremely graphic (as well as audio-enhanced) scene of Vince Vaughn masturbating while watching her in the shower? A shot of Viggo Mortensen's derriere and a semi-shot of something that usually nets movies an NC-17? The original was just fine without them.

Van Sant seemed to think that the public was ready for "Psycho" to be released again. Why not just re-release the original? They've been colorizing pictures for years -- if that was their major worry, I'm sure they could have managed it. We didn't need to see Norman Bates ruined by a bumbling Vince Vaughn, who managed to turn Perkins' sympathetic Norman into a the ultra-creepy village idiot. I find it interesting the two films managed to be so close together in the length of the picture, since the second movie seemed to obsess on things that never happened.

The only thing this movie is good for is tape space for something else. Sheesh, even "Psycho III" was better than this junk, and it was the worst of the lot. I shudder to think who they'd cast in Norman's role should they ever decide to remake "Psycho II". Maybe the character might look a little more like Perkins did. Perkins WAS Norman -- Vaughn's a guy who makes a great creep, and works okay in an action, but he should never be cast in a sympathetic role. He can't carry it off.

The makers of this movie ignored the middle four films, and it shows. (I also thank my lucky stars they did!)

Admittedly, there was no mention in this movie just what Michael was doing for the last twenty years, but I can forgive that. As long as they don't mention the farces that came between the second installment and this one, I'm the world's happiest fly fisher.

While a tad slow (there aren't enough good death scenes to make this a true slasher), the casting is excellent. Newcomers Jodi Lyn O'Keefe and Josh Hartnett prove they can more than hold their own, as do the more experienced Michelle Williams and Adam Hann-Byrd, and LL Cool J is well-cast (and under-used) in the role of the campus security guard.

Admittedly the storyline is a little shaky. What IS it with Michael Myers and 17-yr-old relations? And did they forget that there is absolutely NO WAY that Laurie Strode graduated in 1978? She was still in school when the film was set, in October of 1978. While I seem to recall her being a junior, even if she WAS a senior, that's grad of 1979. Oh, but I digress.

Basically, this is a good movie, and an excellent end to the series. The end of the movie rocks, and hopefully means that there will be NO MORE SEQUELS. The Halloween series (and I don't count three through six, which were horrendous mistakes and not made by the original artists) is the ONLY non-supernatural and extremely successful slasher series to make a hit of itself. (Sure, there were four installments in the "Psycho" series, but most of those are closer to horror/suspense than thriller/slasher.) An 8 out of 10 -- despite being a great flick, there were still some dud lines. Kudos, though, on Sarah's death scene -- that was one of the best of the decade.