Almost, no one likes it when movies are remade. Especially, movies held in such high regard as Psycho. I say almost because I think I’m one of the few (and the proud), who enjoyed Gus Van Sant’s version more than the original. Not to say that he made everything in the film better but many of the fundamental flaws that I discovered in the original film were rectified by the new cast’s interpretations of their characters.
My biggest problem with Hitchcock’s is that the characters didn’t seem believable in many ways. Ironically, Norman Bates, with his highly unusual condition, was the most believable character in the film. In the remake, different characters interactions and reactions seemed more natural and less melodramatic. Most importantly, it was easier to understand Marion’s motivation throughout the film. Though this took away from the sense of fear Marion had in the original, it seemed unnaturally intense in Hitchcock’s version.
Vince Vaughn’s portrayal of Norman was both positive and negative. He lacked the handsome, timid quality that Anthony Perkins had but was significantly more intimidating. In and of itself, Vince did an acceptable job at playing Norman and in his defense; Anthony set the bar quite high. I might be “that guy”, you know, the one critic who liked the movie no one else did, but I’m okay with that because I think Gus Van Sant deserves more credit than he most likely received.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
We can be that guy together because I liked it too. holla!
Post a Comment