Sooooo underrated!


Holy crap, this has to of be one of the best, most well executed remakes in the history of remakes. In fact, it transcends the idea of "remake". This is a true and honest REPRODUCTION. Probably the most effective reproduction I have ever seen.
But for the sake of argument, let's call it a remake. Definitely up there with the great remakes. I'm thinking Carpenter's "The Thing" level of great remakes, something that truly stands the test of time and makes a real impression.
It's like with plays. There are still productions of "Death of a Salseman", new one every year. Same story, same script (maybe augmented), different direction, different cast...different production. But no one refers to a reproduction of "Death of a Salesman" as a remake.
Now, with movies, of course it's trickier, because a film is preserved--it is the same every time you watch it, unlike viewing different performances of a play. But this film proves that it is not impossible to reproduce a film.

This movie works! It's a fresh performance of old material. It's entertaining, it's suspenceful, it's shocking, and it makes me further respect the original.
Such a creepy flick, even for the nineties, and to think the original came out in 1960! And the techniques still work, even though I know what's coming! I was pleasantly surprised by this film.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

reply

It's awful. Out of all the thousands of crappy un-needed remakes of classic films in the world...this one still pisses me off the most.

Gus Van Zandt is a complete arrogant tool for thinking he could recreate this classic. It's insulting to the original film, and to this day angers and annoys me.

It's NOT a good film. Not even close. It's a crappy pointless remake of one of the greatest films ever.

reply

Overreact much? While the original "Psycho" is great, there are several ways in which the '98 version improved upon it (which isn't to say it's better, of course). Some examples can be read here:
https://moviechat.org/tt0155975/Psycho/5b7a471e1d988a00144cd065/Its-almost-a-shot-by-shot-reproduction-but-its-not-a-duplicate-and-has-its-merits

reply

@sut6432
I respectfully disagree with your position, and stand by my original post, but I appreciate your passionate response.
Just a side note: it wasn't Van Sant's idea to remake the classic Hitchcock film. It was a studio picture, and the studio was gonna make it no matter what. Van Sant took the job because--in his words--that way no one else would have to.

reply

Yeah. Most people rate it a 1 or 2, but I'd give it at least a 3.

reply