mmm if this movie is shot the same exact way as the original then what makes it so bad? is it vince vaughn? cause i saw this way before wedding crashers. i was maybe 13 or 12 around that age.
This is a decent remake, but people just like to say that it isn't to be cool and hip, so they it isn't as good as the original. Even if they haven't seen any version.
This was the worst remake I`d seen. Hitchcock and Anthony Perkins himself would have been so disapointed. Vince Vaughn looked nothing like Anthony and he sure didn`t act right. The Norman we know and love never jacked off to Marion in the original when he was spying on her. That was what really surpised me. That they made him so male in that scene. Also what is the purpose of remaking something if it`s word for word and scene for scene. No creative takes on it what so ever.
After seeing the remake, I couldn't help but to praise Hitchcock's genius decision to shoot the original in black and white. He was very right about the red blood in the bath being to gruesome. Psycho was a well developed film and remains one of my favorites.
honestly, i think the Psycho remake was the all time worst remake ever, mainly because it LITERALLY recreated every shot from the movie. now to be fair that is very impressive for the director to recreate every angle, but at the same time it makes you ask, "Why not try something new"? also, Vince Haughn as Norman Bates = FAIL!!!!!
I can't take vince vaughn seriously enough to play Norman Bates. All I think about is wedding crashers. Maybe he motor-boated Marion Crane to death. Remakes are always the worst.
@goalie9579 yeah but the thing 1982 is a remake of the thing from another world thats what im getting at but your right the 2011 the thing was pretty poopy
@goalie9579 Well this was before Wedding Crashers. I think he played a pretty convincing psycho. My only regret for the remake was they didn't try anything new. They just shot for shot remade it.
I thought this was a good movie I think you people are just so picky and spoiled nothing is ever good enough to please you people...I liked it end of story...
my mother showed it to me while I was 11 and I did not understand completely which is a good thing. THANK THE LORD. Oh mother, I WAS 11. what was she thinking?
This movie failed HARD because of this trailer. Who's the genius who decided to tell the world that something is wrong with Norman Bates? Way to go idiots.
original is a masterpiece but i have way more fun watching the remake and it being a shot for shot remake makes it way more entertaining, it feels way more realistic with the modern day actors taking that dated dialog and delivering proformance, god awful it they made the move in a different way then the original thats really hard to pull off and it works, other films try to be shot for shot remakes and end up as pieces of shit. and really watch vince is creepy he's different but still good
@Johnlindsey289 No. I'm not off my nut, I just liked seeing what happens when you use an old shooting script with todays actors. I didn't comment on whether it was better than anything, just that the experiment was fantastic. I'm not promoting remakes or the destruction of the original, just stating that I personally enjoyed Gus Van Sant's refilming project.
But i think it's a mistake to use an outdated script when the film was suppose to be set in 1998 as some of the dialogue and situations feel ridiculous such as the situation between Marion and Sam talking about not being married due to no paying alimoney, sooo STUPID and outdated as it was feasable in 1960 but in 1998. People don't talk like that anymore, they should have updated the situations and modernized them. What do you think of Zombie's Halloween? did something different
@Johnlindsey289 Yes it is a mistake. By trialing this idea of using an old script, it was a fun experiment and I enjoyed the performances, but I'm aware of the hokiness of the times and their irrelevence today, and so more complete refilmings haven't occured. I'm not into remakes, but this version of Psycho was more akin to colorization and interesting from that viewpoint - as a film experiment. Can't think of a re-imagining I enjoyed more than the original other than The Thing.
The thing a lot of people don't realize about Vince Vaughn was that he WAS a serious actor back in the mid-90s. Just watch Clay Pigeons or parts of Swingers. However, disregarding that, this movie is STILL a terrible concept.
Look at this trailer, you can just tell Universal was trying to make it seem like it was trying to be an edgier remake. All those rapid cutting techniques, the stock footage, the attention to the more sensual scenes? Come on.
I think the movie could have won more people over if they had a better guy to play Norman. I mean, Norman Bates IS the movie and Vince Vaughn just did not deliver.
Now i havent seen this but i believe people need to lighten up. This movie was made as an experiment and the director was just having fun making, probably, one of his favorite movies. As far as Vince Vaughn goes (again i havent seen the remake), i'm sure he did a fine job; we're just used to seeing him in comedies. Him playing a villain in a horror movie just throws people off. Musicians cover classic songs all the time, why are classic movie covers always so hated.
But the dialouge and situations are outdated and stupid for a movie that was suppose to be in 1998 when the stuff has not been updated. In 1960, it was feasable that a proper young woman would not bring a man to a home she shares with her conservative sister so a hotel is their only choice, do they need to "Sneek" during their lunch hour in this time? Sam can't marry marion because he's paying alimony, outdated and STUPID, they should have updated the stuff to fit a modern era
The original was better...Anthony Hopkins didn't look like a murderer, Vince Vaughn always gave me the creeps in this movie...maybe it was that I knew who he was playing!
This trailer was done all wrong. why the fuck would they make it obvious that norman has a problem? WHY??? that was the twist....what a fail. and it gives away too much.
The casting was aLL wrong in this...but for Macy in Balsam's part! Moore had waaay too much attitude; Henry Thomas, {who'd already played THE PERfect younger Norman years earlier in Psycho IV}, should've gotten the part, instead of soggy Vaughn.. And then there's-- Well, suffice it to say, couldn't they've found ANYboddy closer to sparkling blue-eyed, poised and pretty little Leigh to play her part than HECHE, FCOL?? Reckless remake! BIG "WHYYY?!!"
i have to admit even though i haven't seen either of these two films. i thought anthony perkins was a good norman bates. but when i just look at vince vaughn just staring blankly like that. i'm kinda more interested
Okay, I didn't even like the original Psycho, I'm one of those kids these days that can't appreciate old movies. But at least Anthony was fucking hot.
...BUT VINCE VAUGHN??? REALLY??????? also can you even take that dude seriously....
HAHAHAHA WHO IN THEIR FUCKING RIGHT MIND WOULD ACTUALLY THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO CAST VINCE VAUGHAN AS ONE OF THE GREAT VILLAINS OF ALL TIME?!?!!?
@risambu Vaughn's version of Norman Bates is more faithful to the novel than of the 1960 version. In the novel, Norman Bates is described as looking like an overweight and in the 1960 film, he is stout. Here, Vince Vaughn looks like an overweight so it was more subtle to the novel.
@MultiJames95 Anthony Perkins' Norman Bates is better than the one in the novel. I've read it, and Hitch's decision to get Anthony Perkins, change Bates' personality, not make him an alcoholic, etc. all led to creating the greatest villain in the history of cinema.
@risambu Vaughn's version of Norman Bates is more faithful to the novel than of the 1960 version. In the novel, Norman Bates is described as looking like an overweight and in the 1960 film, he is stout. Here, Vince Vaughn looks like an overweight so it was more subtle to the novel.
they just copied the whole thing of the original in to coloured version, so for those of you who prefer coloured version of psycho, the remake is for you.
They show the last scene in the movie as the first clip in the trailer, WTF!? I actually like remakes, but this, this was pointless, it offered nothing new or interesting, the remake of Let the Right One In was more different then this remake....and this trailer....fail. Thanks for posting thought, fun seeing again
I dont think vince vaun is a bad actor hes just alot better in comedies. I havent seen this version of psycho, but im going to watch it out of curiousity. the first psycho film is amazing.
Nothing compares to the original. As much as Vince Vaughn makes me laugh, when people think of Norman Bates, they think of Anthony Perkins, one of Hollywood's most underrated actors. I was a little shocked to discover they tried to do a remake. The original is a masterpiece created by the Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock.
I know, the dialog is outdated in this remake because it's the same script used 40 years ago when it's suppose to be 1998 and people don't talk like that anymore. They should have updated the dialog and do different things.
You gotta remake a movie that wasn't beloved or well known in the first place. I don't see you complain about The Thing and The Fly remakes and what makes those different? were the original movies these hokey old 50's b-movies that didn't have the time or technology to do the original idea justice so the directors Cronenberg and Carpenter grew up with the old cheesey movies and made them better.
I don't know why people have a problem with this film. It's the exact same as the original. Even most of the camera use is the same. Granted, Vince Vaughn is no Anthony Perkins but he still did a pretty good job. So did Anne Heche, William H. Macy, Viggo Mortenson, and Julianne Moore.
If any movie "truly" deserves the tile of a remake, it's this.
NO, if it ain't broke don't fix it, there's nothing wrong with the original masterpiece and deserves no remake and neither did Halloween. It's stupid to use the same script from 1960 when the film is suppose to set in 1998 and they were talking about not getting married due to alimoney, people don't talk like that anymore. They should have updated the dialog and change some scenes otherwise it's like having a photo copy of the Mona Lisa to pass off as a remake.
why rremake something that needs no remaking. The only one i could ever see doing a remake of the original norman bates would be Johnny Depp... thats just my pick. there are alot of potential candidates. But none will ever compare to Anthony Perkins. even in II and III, his acting carried the movie. His portrayal of the now infamous Norman Bates is legendary. It is like trying to replace anthony hopkins in the hannibal lector films. It is too risky to even try.
I agree, if it isn't broke don't fix it. They should have updated some stuff including the dialog which is the same as people back then did talked like that and had some things back in 1960 and this remake is suppose to be set in 1998 and they needed to change the clothing to today's clothing instead of 1960. Now The Thing and The Fly deserved to be remade in the 80's because the originals had something wrong with them.
bahahaha i can NOT respect this movie with vince vaughn as fucking norman bates, man. not that i could respect this movie anyway. it is total blasphemy to remake psycho. shame!!!!
I know people say that no other person could ever play Norman Bates, but I think Edward Norton could've done a really good job in the role. And they should've tried harder to make it their own.
I mean there was nothing wrong withthe original in the first place? i adored Psycho 1960 when i was 16 back in early 98, it became one of my favorite movies. I was angered when i saw the remake in theaters saying at the end, Just the same shit done with same dialog, same everything and that sort of thing. Piece of crap, now The Thing with The Fly, Blob, Invasion of Body Snatchers, Dawn of the Dead, Hills Have Eyes, Halloween, Cape Fear etc. were better genre remakes.
@Johnlindsey289 No, the original Psycho was and still is a masterpiece. I can't believe that i actually paid to see this piece of crap back in 98. And to add insult to injury i even went and bought the DVD when it was very first released because i just had to know what was going through the director's mind when he decided to make it. They literally were plagiarizing the original by recreating it shot for shot. I mean they were even studying the original movie on the set while they were shooting.
Damn remake, do you think The Thing and The Fly were better than this steaming heap of crap? i mean the originals were these cheap 50's Sci-fi horror b-movies that had a great idea but they didn't have the technology or time to do them justice back then, Carpenter grew up with the original and remade it with perfection as the same for Cronenberg. I wanted my money back after i saw this debacle
@Johnlindsey289 Yes this remake was totally pointless because the original is a brilliant,flawless masterpiece that can't be improved upon anyway but they didn't even try to do that. Instead they just copied the original frame by frame and it was just painful to sit through. The Thing and The Fly remakes are excellent examples of a remake done right because they took the original concepts and improved upon them. I was very angry and really wanted my money back after seeing this pile of dog crap.
@TheAltair4 Well if you want to nitpick the original Psyco isn't 100% flawless, in one scene where Marion pulls into the motel you can see a production lamp(post) off to left, it's not that hard to miss but you can clearly see it, and after the shower scene when Marion is completely dead with her head on the floor you can see her take a breath at one point just keep your eyes on her neck you can see it.
@theaterattendee No film is 100% flawless. There are always technical flaws to be found somewhere if you look carefully enough for them. Besides i wasn't nitpicking. The remake was just a pointless and all around bad movie, in my opinion.
Not only that but the situtations and dialogue in this movie is sooo 1960 when it hasn't been updated to suit a more modern era but doing that stuff in 1998 from 1960 is stupid.
The Psycho sequels were better than this mess. Do you think Rob Zombie's Halloween was a better unneeded remake than this? at least it was different than the original
@Johnlindsey289 The Psycho sequels, even part 4, were much better than this trash. Rob Zombie's Halloween is an example of a remake actually trying to do something fresh and different with the original concept so i would say it's definitely better than this as well.
Terrible remake, 13 years ago when i was 16 who loved Psycho the original and it's sequels the year before this remake, i payed to see it in theaters and i got mad afterwards. It blew badly and made me mad, it's just a boring colored carbon copy shot-to-shot-scene-by-scene rehash with nothing new, now The Thing with Dawn of the Dead, The Fly, Crazies, Hills Have Eyes, Blob etc. were better than this hopeless mess.
Well done for giving away the hugest twist in THE TRAILER, I saw the original today and it was so damn good, I hate it when trailers are meant to attract people so much that they're essentially a 2 minute movie spoiler.
the innocence that was in Antony Perkins is missing in Vaugh,that was the main problem,also many other things.
AamirNBebofan 4 days ago
0:37 Rob Zombie
Pititisch 5 days ago
2 people from Jurasasic Park lost world lo;
ZombieCallum 6 days ago
Anyone see Vince in "Domestic Disturbance"? I saw it and he played a psycho in that one.
trdidion 1 week ago
Love Vince Vaughn but not as Norman Bates LMAO. Not even dissing them for making the remake, just shouldn't have used Vaughn.
206Hoopsfan4ever 1 week ago
Oh.. the original movie from Alfred Hitchcock is so much better..
AlinaLoveYou2011 1 week ago
Anthony Perkins played Norman Bates the best
Clog700 2 weeks ago
The 1st is the BEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!¡!!!!!!
Clog700 2 weeks ago
I saw this version when I was about 12 or 13 also. Its decent for a remake. But only a few remakes do well anyhow.
GTH4250 3 weeks ago
mmm if this movie is shot the same exact way as the original then what makes it so bad? is it vince vaughn? cause i saw this way before wedding crashers. i was maybe 13 or 12 around that age.
BEARARMZ 1 month ago
This is a decent remake, but people just like to say that it isn't to be cool and hip, so they it isn't as good as the original. Even if they haven't seen any version.
bigturtlehand 1 month ago
@MrSuckMyVajayjay
No point in fucking complaining. This version came out in 1998, so why don't you just calm down.
bigturtlehand 1 month ago
This was the worst remake I`d seen. Hitchcock and Anthony Perkins himself would have been so disapointed. Vince Vaughn looked nothing like Anthony and he sure didn`t act right. The Norman we know and love never jacked off to Marion in the original when he was spying on her. That was what really surpised me. That they made him so male in that scene. Also what is the purpose of remaking something if it`s word for word and scene for scene. No creative takes on it what so ever.
Movie92Fanatic 2 months ago
@Movie92Fanatic
Except for the masturbating which you just fucking described. Read your own comment, man.
bigturtlehand 1 month ago
3...2...1... DODGEBALL!!
Shaqify32 2 months ago
After seeing the remake, I couldn't help but to praise Hitchcock's genius decision to shoot the original in black and white. He was very right about the red blood in the bath being to gruesome. Psycho was a well developed film and remains one of my favorites.
Can't say too much about the remake. No offense.
IndieWayYouWantIt 3 months ago
It wasn't that bad. It was a remake. It's supposed to be a remade version of Psycho. Jesus fucking christ. =.=
TeamPlasmaKingN 4 months ago
This remake was godawful! Also, they gave away the twist in the trailer!
Xanatos21 4 months ago
honestly, i think the Psycho remake was the all time worst remake ever, mainly because it LITERALLY recreated every shot from the movie. now to be fair that is very impressive for the director to recreate every angle, but at the same time it makes you ask, "Why not try something new"? also, Vince Haughn as Norman Bates = FAIL!!!!!
Teenlego 4 months ago
how dare they remake hitchcocks masterpiece. if he was still alive in 1998, he would have killed those morons himself
vadimzdonutube 4 months ago
I really love this trailer, i mean, not only because is Rob Zombie at 00:37 on it, this trailer have something that makes it awesome
Fides4Ever3333 5 months ago
I can't take vince vaughn seriously enough to play Norman Bates. All I think about is wedding crashers. Maybe he motor-boated Marion Crane to death. Remakes are always the worst.
goalie9579 5 months ago 26
@goalie9579 scarface was a remake... so was the thing (1982) .
maudier 4 months ago
@maudier Ok you have your point with Scarface, but seriously the Thing yeah they made a 2011 remake...Have you seen it? Cause that shit sucked
goalie9579 4 months ago
@goalie9579 yeah but the thing 1982 is a remake of the thing from another world thats what im getting at but your right the 2011 the thing was pretty poopy
maudier 4 months ago
@goalie9579 Wth you obviously didn't see The Thing 2011. It wasn't even a remake!
clovie101 4 months ago
@goalie9579 Well this was before Wedding Crashers. I think he played a pretty convincing psycho. My only regret for the remake was they didn't try anything new. They just shot for shot remade it.
CoReYcRaCkDoWn 3 months ago
@goalie9579
it also has 2 people from jurassic park lost world! julaine moore and vince
ZombieCallum 6 days ago
I thought this was a good movie I think you people are just so picky and spoiled nothing is ever good enough to please you people...I liked it end of story...
TheMrsuperman2000 5 months ago
This film's okay, the story is similar to that of the original movie, but the SERIOUSLY messed up on Norman Bates, if you ask me.
SidRulz100 5 months ago
The original was good. Excellent! Why the fuck did someone had to do a remake?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
MusicLyrics512 6 months ago
what the fuckkkk, nooooooooooo! i wish i could go back in time and stop this damn remake from ever being made.
shandyalex 6 months ago 5
What a rip off from the original...!
rantunestube 6 months ago
What do you mean "A New Film..."?! This is an EXACT COPY of the original! Except that its bad!
ThisIsWhatJackHasToS 6 months ago
my mother showed it to me while I was 11 and I did not understand completely which is a good thing. THANK THE LORD. Oh mother, I WAS 11. what was she thinking?
twiggy695 6 months ago
The Remake is bad.
I would like it if there was a different Norman Bates Actor and no masturbation!
TheAleX1995X 6 months ago
@TheAleX1995X
Do you think Rob Zombie's Halloween was better than this mess?
Johnlindsey289 6 months ago
@Johnlindsey289 yes, it was :D
TheAleX1995X 6 months ago
I saw rob zombie! 0:37,
A7X447 7 months ago
This movie failed HARD because of this trailer. Who's the genius who decided to tell the world that something is wrong with Norman Bates? Way to go idiots.
BYOSProductions 7 months ago
Lmao, no that is NOT the face of Norman Bates.
emmactress1894 7 months ago
original is a masterpiece but i have way more fun watching the remake and it being a shot for shot remake makes it way more entertaining, it feels way more realistic with the modern day actors taking that dated dialog and delivering proformance, god awful it they made the move in a different way then the original thats really hard to pull off and it works, other films try to be shot for shot remakes and end up as pieces of shit. and really watch vince is creepy he's different but still good
POOLBOYROCKSTAR 7 months ago
@POOLBOYROCKSTAR I agree completely!!
ilreput1 6 months ago
@Cance251
What do you think of The Thing and The Fly remake?
Johnlindsey289 7 months ago
Van Sant paved the way for all the shitty remakes that are been produced to this day. For that, he deserves to burn in Hell.
DuracellEnergizer 7 months ago
Loved seeing the original script and filming used with todays acting. A fantastic experiment. Vince Vaughn was brilliant.
ilreput1 7 months ago
@ilreput1
Are you off your nut? Rob Zombie's Halloween was better than this
Johnlindsey289 7 months ago
@Johnlindsey289 No. I'm not off my nut, I just liked seeing what happens when you use an old shooting script with todays actors. I didn't comment on whether it was better than anything, just that the experiment was fantastic. I'm not promoting remakes or the destruction of the original, just stating that I personally enjoyed Gus Van Sant's refilming project.
ilreput1 6 months ago
@ilreput1
But i think it's a mistake to use an outdated script when the film was suppose to be set in 1998 as some of the dialogue and situations feel ridiculous such as the situation between Marion and Sam talking about not being married due to no paying alimoney, sooo STUPID and outdated as it was feasable in 1960 but in 1998. People don't talk like that anymore, they should have updated the situations and modernized them. What do you think of Zombie's Halloween? did something different
Johnlindsey289 6 months ago
@Johnlindsey289 Yes it is a mistake. By trialing this idea of using an old script, it was a fun experiment and I enjoyed the performances, but I'm aware of the hokiness of the times and their irrelevence today, and so more complete refilmings haven't occured. I'm not into remakes, but this version of Psycho was more akin to colorization and interesting from that viewpoint - as a film experiment. Can't think of a re-imagining I enjoyed more than the original other than The Thing.
ilreput1 6 months ago
The thing a lot of people don't realize about Vince Vaughn was that he WAS a serious actor back in the mid-90s. Just watch Clay Pigeons or parts of Swingers. However, disregarding that, this movie is STILL a terrible concept.
Look at this trailer, you can just tell Universal was trying to make it seem like it was trying to be an edgier remake. All those rapid cutting techniques, the stock footage, the attention to the more sensual scenes? Come on.
Gus, ya tried, but you failed pretty hard.
ZyxthePest 8 months ago
I think the movie could have won more people over if they had a better guy to play Norman. I mean, Norman Bates IS the movie and Vince Vaughn just did not deliver.
andenisa 8 months ago
I prefer the 1960 version of this movie.
Claptonisgod1989 8 months ago
I think Vince Vaughn was really good in this movie. Shows that he's not a 'comedy actor' he's an actor, he can handle more than one genre.
books0from0boxes 9 months ago
Lmao at all of the 16 year olds commenting "omg vince vaughn is a comedy actor fail"...
During this time he was more than a comedy guy, in fact, he was a very promising actor.
SoooBlue 9 months ago
Nostalgia Critic has to review this Psycho remake.
1989gamemaster 9 months ago 2
Vince Vaughn is a comedian!!!!! Big Fail
CutandPrintFilms 9 months ago
Now i havent seen this but i believe people need to lighten up. This movie was made as an experiment and the director was just having fun making, probably, one of his favorite movies. As far as Vince Vaughn goes (again i havent seen the remake), i'm sure he did a fine job; we're just used to seeing him in comedies. Him playing a villain in a horror movie just throws people off. Musicians cover classic songs all the time, why are classic movie covers always so hated.
Just be open minded
ienjoymusic27 9 months ago
@ienjoymusic27
But the dialouge and situations are outdated and stupid for a movie that was suppose to be in 1998 when the stuff has not been updated. In 1960, it was feasable that a proper young woman would not bring a man to a home she shares with her conservative sister so a hotel is their only choice, do they need to "Sneek" during their lunch hour in this time? Sam can't marry marion because he's paying alimony, outdated and STUPID, they should have updated the stuff to fit a modern era
Johnlindsey289 7 months ago
The mind of Norman bates is rob zombie? 0:36
LISANJOHN710 9 months ago
LOOKS LIKE SHIT!
galitach123 9 months ago
Totally unnecessary & bad remake! BOMB!!!
THX1205 9 months ago
@THX1205
Would you say the same for Halloween?
Johnlindsey289 7 months ago
@Johnlindsey289 NO, it's better.
THX1205 7 months ago
@THX1205
Do you think The Thing and The Fly were better remakes than this slop?
Johnlindsey289 7 months ago
@Johnlindsey289 Yes, better than this bomb!
THX1205 7 months ago
The original was better...Anthony Hopkins didn't look like a murderer, Vince Vaughn always gave me the creeps in this movie...maybe it was that I knew who he was playing!
winfan1978 9 months ago
@winfan1978 I really hope you mean Anthony Perkins!
doitinasubmarine 9 months ago
At 1:20 when he says "Mother! Oh, God! MOTHER!" That should have been used in the film.
TheDman147100 10 months ago
vince vaughn???
FordPerfect 10 months ago
The trailer for the original 1960 version is WAY better.
6Antichrist6Rising6 10 months ago
This trailer was done all wrong. why the fuck would they make it obvious that norman has a problem? WHY??? that was the twist....what a fail. and it gives away too much.
BYOSProductions 10 months ago
The casting was aLL wrong in this...but for Macy in Balsam's part! Moore had waaay too much attitude; Henry Thomas, {who'd already played THE PERfect younger Norman years earlier in Psycho IV}, should've gotten the part, instead of soggy Vaughn.. And then there's-- Well, suffice it to say, couldn't they've found ANYboddy closer to sparkling blue-eyed, poised and pretty little Leigh to play her part than HECHE, FCOL?? Reckless remake! BIG "WHYYY?!!"
tubeeorrnottubee 10 months ago
Loving the big debate guys! Never thought this video would get 57,537 views!
thrashmetalteen 10 months ago 4
Vince Vaughn's version of Norman Bates is great. But Anthony Perkins' version is nicer
MultiJames95 10 months ago
i think vince has his own style, tony perkins is more of a typical psycho, vince is more lively and make it seems more likely to happen
dpsrush 11 months ago
the original was better by far
xsk8errgurlx 11 months ago
hmmm.. ive seen all your comments..
i get it but i think vine vaughn didnt do such a crappy job..
hes quite good compared to the actors in scary movies today..
nhayep2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Vince Vaughn does a better Norman Bates like Anthony Perkins. I like both the original and the remake. They both EPIC win
MultiJames95 11 months ago
vince vaughn?...were they high, i mean i like vince vaughn but as norman bates, now thats just fucking stupid
crashvoorhees7 11 months ago
@crashvoorhees7 At this time Vince Vaughn was a promising actor not some romcom regular.
SoooBlue 11 months ago
@SoooBlue ok but its still weird
crashvoorhees7 11 months ago
Yeah this was a terrible remake, if you can call it that - shot for shot. Watch the original masterpiece.
enerjon777 11 months ago
I hate that I saw this verison before seeing the original... it ruined it for me.
doda 1 year ago
This could pass off as a comedy.
sahanagopaal 1 year ago
The OG is better
brwneyezx3 1 year ago
HORRIBE MOVIE
yournotrandom 1 year ago
This my some up of every Vice vaughn film "I'm incapable of loving another person. Oh wait no I'm not" Stewie FTW
WILLSTERROCKSTER 1 year ago
This movie sucked who dared to direct.........Gus Van Sant?! The man who directed Oscar Winners like Finding Forester and Milk? He directed this?!
TheWarlord900 1 year ago
@TheWarlord900 I honestly think he was probably just having a larf.
IamJacksCooCooCaChoo 1 year ago
i have to admit even though i haven't seen either of these two films. i thought anthony perkins was a good norman bates. but when i just look at vince vaughn just staring blankly like that. i'm kinda more interested
kingofburnttoast 1 year ago
Okay, I didn't even like the original Psycho, I'm one of those kids these days that can't appreciate old movies. But at least Anthony was fucking hot.
...BUT VINCE VAUGHN??? REALLY??????? also can you even take that dude seriously....
marinlabyrinth 1 year ago 2
Vince Vaughn is hot in this movie tho I rather watch the original!
MissUrsiela 1 year ago
What a f*cking lame remake! -.-''
AnaRitasChannel 1 year ago
HAHAHAHA WHO IN THEIR FUCKING RIGHT MIND WOULD ACTUALLY THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO CAST VINCE VAUGHAN AS ONE OF THE GREAT VILLAINS OF ALL TIME?!?!!?
roloug95 1 year ago
" A New Film Directed By Gus Van Sant"? No No, How About: "An Old Movie That's Already Been Made Directed By Gus Van Sant"
vladnngs17 1 year ago
Vince Vaughn does a better Norman Bates like Anthony Perkins. I like both the original and the remake. They both win
MultiJames95 1 year ago
@MultiJames95 correction.. EPIC WIN
CTronicz 1 year ago
@CTronicz Thanks
MultiJames95 1 year ago
@MultiJames95 No no no no. You are dead wrong.
risambu 1 year ago
@risambu Vaughn's version of Norman Bates is more faithful to the novel than of the 1960 version. In the novel, Norman Bates is described as looking like an overweight and in the 1960 film, he is stout. Here, Vince Vaughn looks like an overweight so it was more subtle to the novel.
MultiJames95 1 year ago
@MultiJames95 Anthony Perkins' Norman Bates is better than the one in the novel. I've read it, and Hitch's decision to get Anthony Perkins, change Bates' personality, not make him an alcoholic, etc. all led to creating the greatest villain in the history of cinema.
risambu 1 year ago
@risambu Vaughn's version of Norman Bates is more faithful to the novel than of the 1960 version. In the novel, Norman Bates is described as looking like an overweight and in the 1960 film, he is stout. Here, Vince Vaughn looks like an overweight so it was more subtle to the novel.
MultiJames95 1 year ago
"A New Film by Gus van Saint"
That's right, a brand new remake by Gus van Saint! Ah well, at least he went on to do Milk.
Also, that's not the face of Norman Bates. That's the fact of a creepy guy who hangs out near the convenience store in my neighborhood.
Robogabriel 1 year ago
The movie was not bad but the trailer is very good!
Jadama0 1 year ago
for a crap movie
pretty cool trailer
TomAraya23 1 year ago
no no no no no! this is alll wrong! anthony perkins is the face of norman bates. vince vaughn is a man of comedy not suspense.
iluvu0612 1 year ago 17
they just copied the whole thing of the original in to coloured version, so for those of you who prefer coloured version of psycho, the remake is for you.
Gencturk92 1 year ago
The thing is I would really like to see Vince Vaughn in darker roles.
xxPatheticEmoxx 1 year ago
This is the worst shot-by-shot remake ever made.
Dgamer21 1 year ago
This is actually a pretty cool trailer.
Neonman78 1 year ago
at about 0:37 you can see rob zombie! no joke!
zdevlin88 1 year ago 42
@zdevlin88 hahah you right
thodorisgiannakopoul 1 year ago
@zdevlin88 yes it's r. zombie, who else could've been be?..
jedsebastian 8 months ago
@jedsebastian i pointed it out because rob zombie has nothing to do with the film
zdevlin88 8 months ago
@zdevlin88 was about to say that! nice to see him.
Darthification 8 months ago
why the hell would they make vince vaughn norman bates....thats sucha fail
GG100FDZ 1 year ago 55
@GG100FDZ ha ha ha loool
mademan4life 1 year ago
why remake psycho?
marsaun123 1 year ago
Ok, I LOVE Gus Van Sant, but why, why, did he have to remake Psycho?
VFDbranch13 1 year ago
it's just the same as the original but worse
velvetinetable 1 year ago
They show the last scene in the movie as the first clip in the trailer, WTF!? I actually like remakes, but this, this was pointless, it offered nothing new or interesting, the remake of Let the Right One In was more different then this remake....and this trailer....fail. Thanks for posting thought, fun seeing again
VoidedFilms 1 year ago
How ironic is it that the first slasher film also had the first remake slasher film.
Sizzmaster6985 1 year ago
I dont think vince vaun is a bad actor hes just alot better in comedies. I havent seen this version of psycho, but im going to watch it out of curiousity. the first psycho film is amazing.
jimbo222000 1 year ago
This sucks. Classics should never be remade.
TheBizarreMonster 1 year ago
At 37 seconds, a picture of old-school Rob Zombie is flashed. Didn't know Norman was a White Zombie fan.
Drratburn 1 year ago
anthony perkins says the lines way better
abc12319525 1 year ago
but vince vaughn kinda looks messed up
Moviewatcher106 1 year ago
Nothing compares to the original. As much as Vince Vaughn makes me laugh, when people think of Norman Bates, they think of Anthony Perkins, one of Hollywood's most underrated actors. I was a little shocked to discover they tried to do a remake. The original is a masterpiece created by the Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock.
ask3491 1 year ago
@nothingness36 Like it's hard to spoil the ending of Psycho now!
fanguk2 1 year ago
0:37 Rob Zombie?
CreepyUncleSteve 1 year ago 3
@CreepyUncleSteve Yeah, I just noticed that too!
fanguk2 1 year ago
@CreepyUncleSteve IKR!
pumpkinreaper54 1 year ago
Umm...Norman Bates thinks about Rob Zombie? Really?
TheRcanmeananything 1 year ago 2
I don't know what Gus Van Sant was smoking when he casted Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates either, but lets all pray he got brain damage from it.
TheLANC95 1 year ago
Gay
gustavotheking 1 year ago
You didn't. You actually tried to replicate the Anthony Perkins creepy smile! ONLY ONE PERSON FAN DO THAT! Malcolm McDowell!!
xxPatheticEmoxx 1 year ago
Vince Vaughn, lol he's a humor actor, not psycho thing
MystikalQC 1 year ago
@VIEWTUBE00000
I know, the dialog is outdated in this remake because it's the same script used 40 years ago when it's suppose to be 1998 and people don't talk like that anymore. They should have updated the dialog and do different things.
Johnlindsey289 1 year ago
@noirkitten
You gotta remake a movie that wasn't beloved or well known in the first place. I don't see you complain about The Thing and The Fly remakes and what makes those different? were the original movies these hokey old 50's b-movies that didn't have the time or technology to do the original idea justice so the directors Cronenberg and Carpenter grew up with the old cheesey movies and made them better.
Johnlindsey289 1 year ago
Gus Van Sant started 7 accounts and Vince Vaugh made 8 accounts
UltimateDumeandGwen 1 year ago
Excuse me: 'A New Film Directed By...'
Yeeeeeah-NO!
BritFilmLover3 1 year ago
I don't know why people have a problem with this film. It's the exact same as the original. Even most of the camera use is the same. Granted, Vince Vaughn is no Anthony Perkins but he still did a pretty good job. So did Anne Heche, William H. Macy, Viggo Mortenson, and Julianne Moore.
If any movie "truly" deserves the tile of a remake, it's this.
Scoonertuna 1 year ago
@Scoonertuna
NO, if it ain't broke don't fix it, there's nothing wrong with the original masterpiece and deserves no remake and neither did Halloween. It's stupid to use the same script from 1960 when the film is suppose to set in 1998 and they were talking about not getting married due to alimoney, people don't talk like that anymore. They should have updated the dialog and change some scenes otherwise it's like having a photo copy of the Mona Lisa to pass off as a remake.
Johnlindsey289 1 year ago
why rremake something that needs no remaking. The only one i could ever see doing a remake of the original norman bates would be Johnny Depp... thats just my pick. there are alot of potential candidates. But none will ever compare to Anthony Perkins. even in II and III, his acting carried the movie. His portrayal of the now infamous Norman Bates is legendary. It is like trying to replace anthony hopkins in the hannibal lector films. It is too risky to even try.
Siboneycamilo 1 year ago
@Siboneycamilo
I agree, if it isn't broke don't fix it. They should have updated some stuff including the dialog which is the same as people back then did talked like that and had some things back in 1960 and this remake is suppose to be set in 1998 and they needed to change the clothing to today's clothing instead of 1960. Now The Thing and The Fly deserved to be remade in the 80's because the originals had something wrong with them.
Johnlindsey289 1 year ago
Rob Zombie at :37
Computertrouble 1 year ago
bahahaha i can NOT respect this movie with vince vaughn as fucking norman bates, man. not that i could respect this movie anyway. it is total blasphemy to remake psycho. shame!!!!
ApplePirate49 1 year ago
I know people say that no other person could ever play Norman Bates, but I think Edward Norton could've done a really good job in the role. And they should've tried harder to make it their own.
SLPIFan 1 year ago
WHY?
greypilgrim26 1 year ago
iv not seen this, and i dont want too. Psycho is jus one of those movies that should never be touched. Its a classic
GG100FDZ 1 year ago
0:37 Rob Zombie?
BTW, I've not seen this, but Gus Van Sant can do no wrong.
ignoranttwat 1 year ago 2
What the hell?? Vince Vaughn is a comedian why would they cast him?
TheBlackndwhitepictu 1 year ago
why is their a picture of rob zombie in the trailer?
Bigfinlach 1 year ago
I would only watch this to see vince vaugh play a villian :)
spoilt02 1 year ago
doesnt look good. :/ i Like the one from the 60's Better.
Faaithhh18 1 year ago
The single WORST and most POINTLESS remake of all time. Enough said.
TheAltair4 1 year ago
@TheAltair4
I mean there was nothing wrong withthe original in the first place? i adored Psycho 1960 when i was 16 back in early 98, it became one of my favorite movies. I was angered when i saw the remake in theaters saying at the end, Just the same shit done with same dialog, same everything and that sort of thing. Piece of crap, now The Thing with The Fly, Blob, Invasion of Body Snatchers, Dawn of the Dead, Hills Have Eyes, Halloween, Cape Fear etc. were better genre remakes.
Johnlindsey289 1 year ago
@Johnlindsey289 No, the original Psycho was and still is a masterpiece. I can't believe that i actually paid to see this piece of crap back in 98. And to add insult to injury i even went and bought the DVD when it was very first released because i just had to know what was going through the director's mind when he decided to make it. They literally were plagiarizing the original by recreating it shot for shot. I mean they were even studying the original movie on the set while they were shooting.
TheAltair4 1 year ago
@TheAltair4
Damn remake, do you think The Thing and The Fly were better than this steaming heap of crap? i mean the originals were these cheap 50's Sci-fi horror b-movies that had a great idea but they didn't have the technology or time to do them justice back then, Carpenter grew up with the original and remade it with perfection as the same for Cronenberg. I wanted my money back after i saw this debacle
Johnlindsey289 8 months ago
@Johnlindsey289 Yes this remake was totally pointless because the original is a brilliant,flawless masterpiece that can't be improved upon anyway but they didn't even try to do that. Instead they just copied the original frame by frame and it was just painful to sit through. The Thing and The Fly remakes are excellent examples of a remake done right because they took the original concepts and improved upon them. I was very angry and really wanted my money back after seeing this pile of dog crap.
TheAltair4 8 months ago
@TheAltair4 Well if you want to nitpick the original Psyco isn't 100% flawless, in one scene where Marion pulls into the motel you can see a production lamp(post) off to left, it's not that hard to miss but you can clearly see it, and after the shower scene when Marion is completely dead with her head on the floor you can see her take a breath at one point just keep your eyes on her neck you can see it.
theaterattendee 7 months ago
@theaterattendee No film is 100% flawless. There are always technical flaws to be found somewhere if you look carefully enough for them. Besides i wasn't nitpicking. The remake was just a pointless and all around bad movie, in my opinion.
TheAltair4 7 months ago
Comment removed
Johnlindsey289 7 months ago
@TheAltair4
Not only that but the situtations and dialogue in this movie is sooo 1960 when it hasn't been updated to suit a more modern era but doing that stuff in 1998 from 1960 is stupid.
Johnlindsey289 7 months ago
@Johnlindsey289 That's right.
Psycho 1960 = total MASTERPIECE!!!
Psycho 1998 = total FAIL!!!
TheAltair4 7 months ago
@TheAltair4
The Psycho sequels were better than this mess. Do you think Rob Zombie's Halloween was a better unneeded remake than this? at least it was different than the original
Johnlindsey289 7 months ago
@Johnlindsey289 The Psycho sequels, even part 4, were much better than this trash. Rob Zombie's Halloween is an example of a remake actually trying to do something fresh and different with the original concept so i would say it's definitely better than this as well.
TheAltair4 7 months ago
Terrible remake, 13 years ago when i was 16 who loved Psycho the original and it's sequels the year before this remake, i payed to see it in theaters and i got mad afterwards. It blew badly and made me mad, it's just a boring colored carbon copy shot-to-shot-scene-by-scene rehash with nothing new, now The Thing with Dawn of the Dead, The Fly, Crazies, Hills Have Eyes, Blob etc. were better than this hopeless mess.
Johnlindsey289 1 year ago
Well done for giving away the hugest twist in THE TRAILER, I saw the original today and it was so damn good, I hate it when trailers are meant to attract people so much that they're essentially a 2 minute movie spoiler.
DrumTrimmings88 1 year ago
decent movie. plz don't call me this. thanks.
TonyTnTmullen 1 year ago