Honestly, I don't even know where to begin with this movie, aside from the fact that I thought it was awful.
The biggest thing I noticed was the overall lack of tension in the film. Whereas Hitchcock expertly built up the tension through the first 40 minutes of the film, Van Zant apparently made no effort to do the same. Even though I'd watched the original several times before viewing the remake, I could still feel that element of tension in the film. In the remake, I don't think there was any sense of tension until the conversation between Marion and Norman. I think this is primarily because in the original, Marion (and the audience) saw everyone but Norman as a threat to her, whereas in the remake Norman is the only threatening figure.
Part of this has to do with the acting. In the original, Janet Leigh portrayed Marion as a scared, almost paranoid woman who was certain she'd be caught at any moment. Anne Heche's Marion, on the other hand, seems almost bored with the situation and is not frightened when she is stopped or questioned. Rather, she feels frustrated, as if she just wants whoever is bothering her to shut up so she can go and get away with things.
Probably the biggest letdown, in my opinion, was Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates. Contrasing his performance with Anthony Perkins, I feel that Perkins' Norman was like the awkward prepubescint boy who fell in love with his best friend's mother, whereas Vaughn's Norman was the creepy high school nerd hitting on the captain of the cheerleader squad. It is immediately apparent that Norman is crazy in some form or another; the peephole seem only serves to confirm that he's a pervert and the most likely candidate in the film of being the psycho.
I also feel that the use of color ruined the film. This is not to say that shooting the film in color vs. black and white was a bad choice. Rather, I feel that Van Zant's use of color was inappropriate. Everything in the film was very bright, almost to the point of being garish. I have never once seen a horror film where everything was all bright and happy. It just doesn't work; it ruins the tone of the film. On a similar note, every constume used in the film, especially Marion's dress, should be tracked down and burned in the name of good fasion.
The last thing that bothered me were the random shots of stormclouds and other nonsensical things whenever "Mother" attacked. I cannot for the life of me figure out what Van Zant was thinking when he put those in.
Final verdict: Watch the original. Please watch the original. Don't even give this film a passing consideration, especially if you've never seen a Hitchcock film before - you'll never want to see one if you do. It's just that bad.
EDIT 9-11-08:
P.S. Did California Charlie remind anyone else of Jerry Seinfeld?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Although I share your dislike for the remake, I wonder if Hitchcock might disagree with you in one respect. He might really like the juxtaposition of cheery color with horror. Of course, he could have made Psycho in color--he chose B&W, so that might prove me wrong. But Hitchcock did love to emphasize the horror (or potential horror) that happens in the midst of happy, everyday life.
Post a Comment