An actual STARGATE/PORTAL-THING was caught on film in New Mexico. The footage can be found within the short-film entitled "SUDDEN PORTHOLE", which is parked at the PROJECT CAMELOT YouTube page (it's under the George Noory video).
I'm not selling anything…I'm just trying to spread the word about the unseen-dimensions we find ourselves embedded in.
My BLOG contains peripheral data regarding the movie and is where I reply to the "debunkers" (use search words "SAM ZURICK" & "BLOG"). THANKS!!
How incredibly arrogant it was of Whatshisface, to remake something that was the creation of the genius Alfred Hitchcock. It's just terrible, self-serving, and arrogant.
The remake wasnt even a re-imagining! It was the exact same script with shitty acting! The original will always be the best and Anthony Perkins IS norman bates
I believe that the other actors in this version played their parts very well. They took it very seriously, and Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates pleased me. The remake was nice and I loved it. It paid homage to the original film.
Oh Yeah I forgot one thing. Original all the way. Anthony Perkins is much better.
@myers82 not only is the Psycho remake one of the WROST movies ever... it's also one of the worst. And everytime I see Vince Vaughn I think of Dodgeball.
@aquagrl63 Its not plagiarism. Plagiarism is when you EXACTLY copy someone else's work and not give credit for it. Before they made the remake, they cleared all the copyright issues (so they could legally make it) and if you have seen the remake you would know it clearly states in the credits that its based on the original film. I highly recomend you do your homework next time before posting a comment like that.
@SpaceBoyProductions1 I know it isn't actually plagiarism. That was just an exaggeration. I was just commenting on how the movies are so similar that the remake was pointless.
This short clip is a thousand times more clever, and entertaining, than the whole wretched remake of 1998 all put together! ..your apologies to Mr. Hitchcock is a nice touch..but to be honest, I don't think he would have minded~ ..now the remake, on the other hand.... ;)
In the 1990s, to celebrate the centennial of Hitchcock's of Hitchcocks birth, Universal Studios - owners of the film rights to several Hitchcock classics - offered directors the chance to do remakes of his films. This is the only one that was made. So, we're safe from remakes of "Vertigo," "The Birds, "Marnie," and "North by Northwest." And so it goes . . .
I agree with Jen8706....the remake was total crap, with those added images in the shower scene and Arbogast scene....what the hell was that????
Simply put: YOU CANNOT IMPROVE ON PERFECTION, and the original was perfection....no one had ever done it before, and no one has been able to do it since.
PLEASE DON'T READ THIS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DON'T POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READING THIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. SEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKs
There is one important point. Anthony Perkins made Bate shis signature role because he made the audience sympathise with him. Vaughn's character is rather strange and unappealling. Janet Leigh's Marion Crane had sex appeal and vulnerablity. Anne Heche's Crane is neither attractive nor sympathetic. Surely William H Macy has more quirky modes to his characters to be playing a straight forward detective! Anyway the remake was horrible - no more please!
You can not repaint the 'Mona Lisa' - it will always feel like a repaint or copy. This scene by scene remake of 'Psycho' was not any good. It was always going to feel like a poor copy but not this bad! Maybe the music /script do not feel contemporary - or maybe the original should not have worked in the first place but somehow it did! The Thirty Nine Steps was reshot in 1959 and although inferior, was not quite as bad as this! Maybe it is a lesson to us that we should not remake works of art!
Yes remake something that isn't very well known or not beloved! let's say there is a special place in hell for anyone who attempts to remake Casablanca for some movies should be off limits period. Some movies like that, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Maltese Falcon (Yes it is a remake on it's own), Gone with the Wind, It's a Wonderful Life etc. have stood the test of time, being fabrics of cinema and still can be loved today.
Re-imagined? How is a shot-by shot remake of a classic "re-imagined"?
If by re-imagined you mean the brief shot of her caboose and the hokey digitally inserted knife wounds, then you don't have much of an imagination, I'm afraid.
I like this editing... Personally I find both movies great... Mr. Hitchcock´s was amazing... very advanced for his age.. but the remake is a piece of art considering that it is shot by shot.. it is like lithography .
@simolionshane Uhm... Sorry english is my fifth language... what I meant is that he was very advanced for the years... 1960 was it? He had a vision of what the horror movie industry should be.... I think many directors should, at least once a year, go back and check Hitchcock´s work.
I don't understand why, if people thought the original was so great, that a remake which was pretty much shot by shot the same, would be considered bad
Evidence of how pathetic Hollywood is nowadays. Almost imagined the studio sitting around talking about this one...
"Oh gee..lets remake this classic with our favorite bull dyke as the star. "Who cares if she is ugly enough to stop a falling rock... the mainstream media will pass it off as sophisticated. By the way, anyone figured out how we can show a crucifix in a jar of piss?... Oh well, there is always tomorrow and the next scropt.. and the next day..and the next...."
Pointless is a good word to describe the remake. Not awful perse, but when I was watching it on TV all I could think of was what's the fucking point. It just made me want to watch the masterful Hitchcock version instead.
Van Sant's version of Psycho was the first and only film I have ever walked out on in my entire life. I stayed with the pain until about 10 minutes before the ending, then I couldn't takeit any longer. I wiouldn't have even stayed as long as that, if I hadn't paid good money for my ticket. VS's version is excrement.
When I watch a horror movie I always manage to think of an obstacle of how I'd dodge the attack. Then I saw Psycho (original) and really saw just how vulnerable people really are. Nothing's scared me worse then that. Remaking it was one of Hollywoods biggest mistakes.
It was an interesting idea to edit the two sequences together and it worked well. However I have to say I don't think it was a very good idea re-making this film; purley because it is such a classic and didn't need tampering with. But then again that's what happens when you get the green light from big studios who have cash to waste, I'm so against these endless remakes that Hollywood are producing. It's as if Directors don't have anything new to say, which isn't so.
@gyfre84 That's not the point. The point is that the remake took every scene and dialoge right out of Hitchcock's cold dead hands and gave the role of the reviered character of Norman Bates to a bad actor. None of the movies Vince Vaugn has been in have been any good. Hell, you don't believe me, watch every movie he's been in. You'll be halfway through one and want to shove a spoon in your ear. Because if you're going to suffer that much pain, best it be by your own hand.
To those out there talking about Gus Van Sant's "homage" to Hitchcock: Although I respect Gus Van Sant's work as a director ("To Die For," "Milk," "Drugstore Cowboy" "My Own Private Idaho," etc.), he should have known better than to do this. And as for those talking about "shot-by-shot", most of the stuff from the original was cut out or shortened (The Doctor's discussion about Norman is a good example) or added (Macy's death scene with the image of a cow?). Some films should NEVER be remade.
i vote HItchcock was superior. even ignoring fact of just how long ago it was and all the associated factors.... and i know some people find the black and white kinda distracting, i know i did the first time. but i know lot people who find it actually helped build the atmosphere, as your brain automatically uncomfortable, due to the lack of colour. (colour blind people not withstanding ofcourse)
To be fair on Gus Van Sant he made this as an homage to Hitchcocks original, so people that might be put off by the premise of an "old" or "black & white" film would give Phsyco a chance and see what an excelent film it is, thats why its a carbon copy, shot for shot because Gus Van Sant knew Hitchcocks was perfect.
the original was filmed in black and white on purpose. when it came out, technicolor was the standard for at least 5 years already. It was not only used so that the shower scene wouldn't be cut out but also to create a certain atmosphere; this was successful in all respects.
Hitchcock was one of the greatest auteurs in the history of film and has already set the standard for most great movies.
Il remake fa schifo, non da patos, quella specie di attrice più che coltellata sembra ubriaca, appena apre la tendina nel remake, quella non sembra che gridi spaventata, sembra più un grido di piacere. La mano sul muro, le stesse inquadrature, ma perfavore...!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I loved the remake! I have seen both versions and i can honestly say the orignial was not scary, a thriller, talented (except for being the first with the brains to do this sort of film) and black and white was crap!
I t would have been good at the time, but the colour in the remake makes the the film feel more real and believable,- for me black and white is too out of date now to actually convey real life.
This version is great and is worth its title, the orignial is a crap shambles
are you nuts?? - your saying that Gus Van Sant has better filming techniques than Alfred Hitchcock, the master of suspense??..... wow - this is a real sign of the times.
actually - all Gus Vant Sant did, was do an exact shot by shot remake of Hitchcock... so technique goes right out the window, because all he did was rip off Hitchcock - and did a terrible job at it as well..... technology in film goes without saying, of course technology is better now than it was then - but that only gets you so far.... there's a reason why modern horror sucks, compared to films like Psycho, the original Halloween and The Shining.
PIece of garbage remake this one was! why mess with something when it isn't broken? i think Gus Van Sant should be crucified for this crime. now some remakes can work well like The Thing or The Fly yet those were better than the originals, this one was just a pointless done for money remake.
I thought it was a waste of time too, until I caught the remake late at night one time. The film is just an homage to the original. Every scene in Psycho is so engrained in our collective consciousness that watching the remake just makes you remember how fucking brilliant the original is. I think thats what its supposed to do. It combines with your memory and emotions of the original to create another viewing experience. Its not a great stand alone movie, its more like an artistic statement.
Gus Van Sant was a fucking moron...what fucking company would give up millions of dollars to make a shot by shot remake, when there was nothing wrong with the original to begin with??
Gus Van Sant is a great director, I whole-heartedly believe his did this movie because he thought it would be funny. His shower scene itself is unintentional gold.
Most agree, where The Thing and The Fly remakes back in the 80's done for money like this one or were there's something wrong with the originals to begin with as Cronenberg and Carpenter did something better right?
@Jen8706 What remake is not a waste of money. Please mention one remake that is better than the original and I wont take your comment as a waste of time on your part.
What Van Sant showed here is that remakes are remakes, no one will ever deem them as good as the first one no matter how close to the original they are. Of course I preferred the first original, but that didn't stop me from enjoying the remake. It was the act of getting everything almost exactly the same that I admire.
@cannibalsuitcare when I watch a Remake I expect something new, fresh, surprising. What else is that the acting was very bad in the movie, and there where some things not in the original that they put in the remake, that just seemed redicolous - have you seen the shower scene? I wouldn't dare to call the first one a bad movie, what I meant is, that the remake was useless because they didn't put anything original in it. I probably should have exactly said what I meant, I guess.
Do you think The Thing and The Fly were better remakes than this trash? the origina; Psycho is still loved and enjoyed today. The original Thing and Fly movies were unloved hokey 50's b-movies that had something wrong with them because they had no time or technology to do their ideas justice at the time until two talented directors who grew up on the original movies made something fresh and better then their original movies.
There really isn't any comparison between the 1960 and the 1998 re-make. Alfred Hitchcock wins hands-down. He was a genius at cinematography and direction- period.
You know, i've never seen the classic or remake and before reading your comment I had already guessed the classic was better... Remakes rarely beat a classic. Thank you for making my opinionated prediction come true.
The original is so much better. I don't like the remake, it's a cheap knock-off. I like Vince Vaughn, but nobody can do Norman Bates like Anthony Perkins. Hitchcock's version all the Way!
@html0000 yeah i agree with you too,98 remake kinda terrible , vince vaughn sucks so bad at it..i mean can you imagine it.,its late 60's though, its genius shot from there shower scene..no lie..alfred are genius for making this.and tony was good at it,and vince failed..sorry~
He always had a way to make you feel fear and anguish even in scenes were there was no particular reason to feel so.And all these without the stupid splatter things.Hitchock was and wil be the best thriller filmaker
Orginial was the best beacusee like even if u remake a scene dead on they horror industry thinks that the audince will react the same. orgiinal pyscho was a classic as well as well this scene. Hitchcock dident use blood and gore to portay a major role in making it scary. It was the suspence that really builds and makes this movie a classic in my eyes. Buttt all in all the Orginial is best... NO DOUBT :)
the point is can you follow a script? everyone loves do do their version but for the sake ofargument, lets do it the way it was originally intended... that was the idea and i think it was wonderful to do it exactly the way hitchcock first did it
There's just something that ruins, or at least lessens the impact, of the shower scene when it's shown in color. Black and white just seems...classier. I mostly notice this with the blood. Seeing the actual red (or pink in this case) sullies it. The blood washing down the drain seems more symbolic in B&W.
Hitchcock used hershy's chocolate syrup to make the blood in the original because he wanted the darkness and the contrast, in color this gets lost and yea... it looks faker somehow to me too.
Should have finished on zooming out on the eye and using a shot from the thrid version of the scene: Mel Brooks in High Anxiety. Zoom out from the eye and he says, "That kid gets no tip."
this isn't something you'd expect indy auteur Gus Van Sant to sign on to
losMarketGarden 2 weeks ago
Really cool
Danespina 1 month ago
1:18 I'm outta here and going to bed, all right kill someone checked off of today's to do list
MyFlorida7 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An actual STARGATE/PORTAL-THING was caught on film in New Mexico. The footage can be found within the short-film entitled "SUDDEN PORTHOLE", which is parked at the PROJECT CAMELOT YouTube page (it's under the George Noory video).
I'm not selling anything…I'm just trying to spread the word about the unseen-dimensions we find ourselves embedded in.
My BLOG contains peripheral data regarding the movie and is where I reply to the "debunkers" (use search words "SAM ZURICK" & "BLOG"). THANKS!!
peopledick 2 months ago
How incredibly arrogant it was of Whatshisface, to remake something that was the creation of the genius Alfred Hitchcock. It's just terrible, self-serving, and arrogant.
BettinaBalser 3 months ago
The remake wasnt even a re-imagining! It was the exact same script with shitty acting! The original will always be the best and Anthony Perkins IS norman bates
NormanBatesRocks911 3 months ago 2
How is that re-imagined? It only remake...
TheKevinBeacon 4 months ago
older version was better cuz the girl was hotter lol
Flat0506313609 5 months ago 2
@Flat0506313609 janet leigh, i have dreams about that lady <3
HoursofMovies 1 month ago
Janet Leigh and Anne Heche were drop dead gorgeous. No pun intended.
leafyutube 5 months ago
DINA RIGBY IS GONNA PAY!!!!
amazon.com/Dish-Served-Tales-Revenge-ebook/dp/B004W82MCK/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1312396447&sr=1-1
2009frankcastle 5 months ago
And now someone "has" done it and nice work!
satoop 6 months ago
I believe that the other actors in this version played their parts very well. They took it very seriously, and Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates pleased me. The remake was nice and I loved it. It paid homage to the original film.
Oh Yeah I forgot one thing. Original all the way. Anthony Perkins is much better.
MultiJames95 6 months ago
@myers82 not only is the Psycho remake one of the WROST movies ever... it's also one of the worst. And everytime I see Vince Vaughn I think of Dodgeball.
hunkatiel 6 months ago
I dont know wat every ones complaining about they did pretty well because I ve seen worse befor
chipdagodful 7 months ago
Psycho remake is one of the WROST movie ever.
myers82 7 months ago 3
@ 1:41 She should shave...
hsojeliah 7 months ago
who washes themselves liek that...
katie12x 7 months ago
@katie12x Janet Leigh...and Anne Hesche...apparently...
joeyvader 7 months ago
I think theres more blood in this version, its better for me cuz more realistic.. =)
Mushy22000 7 months ago
What the? It's almost exactly the same! That's not a remake, that's plagiarism!
aquagrl63 7 months ago
@aquagrl63 Its not plagiarism. Plagiarism is when you EXACTLY copy someone else's work and not give credit for it. Before they made the remake, they cleared all the copyright issues (so they could legally make it) and if you have seen the remake you would know it clearly states in the credits that its based on the original film. I highly recomend you do your homework next time before posting a comment like that.
SpaceBoyProductions1 6 months ago
@SpaceBoyProductions1 I know it isn't actually plagiarism. That was just an exaggeration. I was just commenting on how the movies are so similar that the remake was pointless.
aquagrl63 6 months ago
in the original it looks like shes having to much fun in that shower
willis5890 8 months ago
Wow well done!!!! This is really skillfully edited and brings them together nicely :)
DestinysNinja 9 months ago 2
Fucking Norman Bates, He killed both. *Spoiler Alert*
hipaulette 9 months ago
This short clip is a thousand times more clever, and entertaining, than the whole wretched remake of 1998 all put together! ..your apologies to Mr. Hitchcock is a nice touch..but to be honest, I don't think he would have minded~ ..now the remake, on the other hand.... ;)
tubeeorrnottubee 10 months ago
Pretty pointless, to be honest.......
NonInflatable 10 months ago
the original is better than this :L
KAZZERmynickname 10 months ago
WTF was that? o.o
BinaryOpposites 10 months ago
I AM HITCHCOCK. I AM DISAPPOINT.
Silko3000 10 months ago
loving psycho funnies Mr Albie beats up a bicyclist for scaring Birdies : )
WOcoFunnies 11 months ago
You almost get a glimpse of Anne's b-hole.
backyardboogiewoogie 11 months ago
@backyardboogiewoogie Actually, you saw Anne's pink b-hole in the movie, well, barely. :p
thehellboundheart007 10 months ago
il remake fa schifo
12345abc54321ful 11 months ago
In the 1990s, to celebrate the centennial of Hitchcock's of Hitchcocks birth, Universal Studios - owners of the film rights to several Hitchcock classics - offered directors the chance to do remakes of his films. This is the only one that was made. So, we're safe from remakes of "Vertigo," "The Birds, "Marnie," and "North by Northwest." And so it goes . . .
TheStockwell 11 months ago
its not re-imagined, its the same scene with a colour camrea and short haired actress...
TheBobworsey 11 months ago
This is just pitiful.
fizzle1234561 11 months ago
with apologies to Mr. Hitchcock. lol....nice
KCOLORAD 11 months ago
Norman Bates Creeps The Shit Out Of Me. This Movie Has Ruined Showers For Me.
Elew100 1 year ago
epic...
jjeessssiiccaaxx 1 year ago
I'll die dirty before I ever take a shower in a dark remote hotel in dark countryside
V
V
waxdcrump222 1 year ago
I'll never take another shower as long as I live. I'll die dirty. LOL
TomorrowUSA 1 year ago
I agree with Jen8706....the remake was total crap, with those added images in the shower scene and Arbogast scene....what the hell was that????
Simply put: YOU CANNOT IMPROVE ON PERFECTION, and the original was perfection....no one had ever done it before, and no one has been able to do it since.
phantasm10000 1 year ago
Schöne Gegenüberstellung!
Cleoelsa 1 year ago
older version was better than this shit
mii284 1 year ago 26
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE DON'T READ THIS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DON'T POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READING THIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. SEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKs
werewolfmaster99 1 hour ago
TaylorLautnerFan681 1 year ago
That was really good :)x
mizzheadphone 1 year ago
MAMA MIA QUE BOCHORNO
Hanthonyo 1 year ago
This Is The Worst Porn Movie I've Ever Seen
thareqdulidu 1 year ago 76
hard to say to remake sucked coz it is excatly the same but with fucked acting
Smallvillenerd 1 year ago
Seeing Heche stabbed was a joy compared to poor Leigh!
marekerhardt 1 year ago
There is one important point. Anthony Perkins made Bate shis signature role because he made the audience sympathise with him. Vaughn's character is rather strange and unappealling. Janet Leigh's Marion Crane had sex appeal and vulnerablity. Anne Heche's Crane is neither attractive nor sympathetic. Surely William H Macy has more quirky modes to his characters to be playing a straight forward detective! Anyway the remake was horrible - no more please!
paolobravo1 1 year ago
You can not repaint the 'Mona Lisa' - it will always feel like a repaint or copy. This scene by scene remake of 'Psycho' was not any good. It was always going to feel like a poor copy but not this bad! Maybe the music /script do not feel contemporary - or maybe the original should not have worked in the first place but somehow it did! The Thirty Nine Steps was reshot in 1959 and although inferior, was not quite as bad as this! Maybe it is a lesson to us that we should not remake works of art!
paolobravo1 1 year ago
@paolobravo1
Yes remake something that isn't very well known or not beloved! let's say there is a special place in hell for anyone who attempts to remake Casablanca for some movies should be off limits period. Some movies like that, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Maltese Falcon (Yes it is a remake on it's own), Gone with the Wind, It's a Wonderful Life etc. have stood the test of time, being fabrics of cinema and still can be loved today.
Johnlindsey289 1 year ago
wtfmate
323bigz 1 year ago
Remake was horrible.
Psycho is one of those things that should have never been touched.
GG100FDZ 1 year ago
Re-imagined? How is a shot-by shot remake of a classic "re-imagined"?
If by re-imagined you mean the brief shot of her caboose and the hokey digitally inserted knife wounds, then you don't have much of an imagination, I'm afraid.
LaMisereHQ 1 year ago
at least her ass was showin
doom3hell 1 year ago
I love The Thing remake ... kart Russell ... was amazing best remake done ever better then the original
TheAbidkhan 1 year ago
crazy vid
micmoable 1 year ago
The newer version is only more disgusting. Nothing else.
Phliblib 1 year ago
the new one makes me laugh
cspr91 1 year ago
I don't care what anybody says, but both those clips were the worst ever! poorly done. movie was terrible.
theshadowwalker9 1 year ago
Now im afraid, to take a shower! ^^
MegaPupsilein 1 year ago
so true...
simolionshane 1 year ago
I like this editing... Personally I find both movies great... Mr. Hitchcock´s was amazing... very advanced for his age.. but the remake is a piece of art considering that it is shot by shot.. it is like lithography .
carlosmendoza85 1 year ago
@carlosmendoza85 Advanced for his age? He was friggin 60 years old!
simolionshane 1 year ago
@simolionshane Uhm... Sorry english is my fifth language... what I meant is that he was very advanced for the years... 1960 was it? He had a vision of what the horror movie industry should be.... I think many directors should, at least once a year, go back and check Hitchcock´s work.
carlosmendoza85 1 year ago 2
Remake is so funny. How could you possbily bleed so much in 5 seconds?
animerulezftw 1 year ago
in the original movie the blood was chocolate syrup because it had the consistency of blood
HoneyAndWine 1 year ago
the original is way better
HoneyAndWine 1 year ago
@HoneyAndWine its hard to say that because the remake is shot for shot
the only difference is color... and vince voughn
mattwilhelm60 1 year ago
kinda an eye rape going from black and white to color
IronXXXMaiden1 1 year ago
One word: color
Achungamara 1 year ago
I don't understand why, if people thought the original was so great, that a remake which was pretty much shot by shot the same, would be considered bad
Kumquantative 1 year ago
Evidence of how pathetic Hollywood is nowadays. Almost imagined the studio sitting around talking about this one...
"Oh gee..lets remake this classic with our favorite bull dyke as the star. "Who cares if she is ugly enough to stop a falling rock... the mainstream media will pass it off as sophisticated. By the way, anyone figured out how we can show a crucifix in a jar of piss?... Oh well, there is always tomorrow and the next scropt.. and the next day..and the next...."
tonysshadow 1 year ago
@tonysshadow hahahha fucking best comment i've ever read on youtube
cod7strats 1 year ago
Most remakes are horrible, stupid hollywood! just leave the originals alone
camplazlo22 1 year ago
Well... clearly no one likes the remake... but I do like this video.
britb85 1 year ago
Original was the best, remake was horseshit!
EdTV20 1 year ago
Pointless is a good word to describe the remake. Not awful perse, but when I was watching it on TV all I could think of was what's the fucking point. It just made me want to watch the masterful Hitchcock version instead.
Chris25698 1 year ago
I don't get why people are Hating on the Remake....it's Practially the Original..WITH COLOR and Different Actors.
Boicovich 1 year ago
I prefer the original version. Hitchcock is simply the best!
ThePanderator 1 year ago 2
Of all the movies to make a re-make of, they had to do Phsycho, seriously wtf.
Spore6001 1 year ago
Van Sant's version of Psycho was the first and only film I have ever walked out on in my entire life. I stayed with the pain until about 10 minutes before the ending, then I couldn't takeit any longer. I wiouldn't have even stayed as long as that, if I hadn't paid good money for my ticket. VS's version is excrement.
mattimattiusa 1 year ago
mudou a musica: agora é: Uma vez flamengo sempre flamengo
capn100 1 year ago
When I watch a horror movie I always manage to think of an obstacle of how I'd dodge the attack. Then I saw Psycho (original) and really saw just how vulnerable people really are. Nothing's scared me worse then that. Remaking it was one of Hollywoods biggest mistakes.
jackiexpackie 1 year ago
It was an interesting idea to edit the two sequences together and it worked well. However I have to say I don't think it was a very good idea re-making this film; purley because it is such a classic and didn't need tampering with. But then again that's what happens when you get the green light from big studios who have cash to waste, I'm so against these endless remakes that Hollywood are producing. It's as if Directors don't have anything new to say, which isn't so.
MillettiFilms 1 year ago
hey,you ppl r dum to say that the remake is too bad.Can't u see the ass more clearly in the remake as compared to the original one?
gyfre84 1 year ago
@gyfre84 Pray for brains, sweetie.
mattimattiusa 1 year ago
@gyfre84 That's not the point. The point is that the remake took every scene and dialoge right out of Hitchcock's cold dead hands and gave the role of the reviered character of Norman Bates to a bad actor. None of the movies Vince Vaugn has been in have been any good. Hell, you don't believe me, watch every movie he's been in. You'll be halfway through one and want to shove a spoon in your ear. Because if you're going to suffer that much pain, best it be by your own hand.
greenpeach20 1 year ago
@greenpeach20 oh hahaha you made my night! Beautifully said!
britb85 1 year ago
Shouldn't have been remade.
CanineFaeces 1 year ago
mattmorettini
The scenes of the two films together were very nice.
I liked your video, you are very creative!
gauchatche 1 year ago
I hate this remake, this movie was very bad.
Who said that Vince Vaughn can be Norman Bates?
When they remake the movies always make "shit".
Who knows the first movie (1960), hate this remake. This is normal.
gauchatche 1 year ago
To those out there talking about Gus Van Sant's "homage" to Hitchcock: Although I respect Gus Van Sant's work as a director ("To Die For," "Milk," "Drugstore Cowboy" "My Own Private Idaho," etc.), he should have known better than to do this. And as for those talking about "shot-by-shot", most of the stuff from the original was cut out or shortened (The Doctor's discussion about Norman is a good example) or added (Macy's death scene with the image of a cow?). Some films should NEVER be remade.
whatuswattingat 1 year ago
i vote HItchcock was superior. even ignoring fact of just how long ago it was and all the associated factors.... and i know some people find the black and white kinda distracting, i know i did the first time. but i know lot people who find it actually helped build the atmosphere, as your brain automatically uncomfortable, due to the lack of colour. (colour blind people not withstanding ofcourse)
apex2000 1 year ago
To be fair on Gus Van Sant he made this as an homage to Hitchcocks original, so people that might be put off by the premise of an "old" or "black & white" film would give Phsyco a chance and see what an excelent film it is, thats why its a carbon copy, shot for shot because Gus Van Sant knew Hitchcocks was perfect.
greeny087 1 year ago
Anne Heche's hand gestures in the beginning of the Psycho remake shower scene are hilarious. She looks so snobby! XD
DrGregoryHouseIT 1 year ago
the original was filmed in black and white on purpose. when it came out, technicolor was the standard for at least 5 years already. It was not only used so that the shower scene wouldn't be cut out but also to create a certain atmosphere; this was successful in all respects.
Hitchcock was one of the greatest auteurs in the history of film and has already set the standard for most great movies.
thatorguy 1 year ago
Il remake fa schifo, non da patos, quella specie di attrice più che coltellata sembra ubriaca, appena apre la tendina nel remake, quella non sembra che gridi spaventata, sembra più un grido di piacere. La mano sul muro, le stesse inquadrature, ma perfavore...!!!
harpo190 1 year ago
did you know chocolate syrup was used for the orignial?
GreatJobVideos 1 year ago 23
@GreatJobVideos i thought it was coca powder
RealianURTV 11 months ago
@GreatJobVideos i know isnt that genius?!
Pacman117productions 11 months ago
@GreatJobVideos Yup, he thought it was more realistic.
angelgirl148 10 months ago
gus van sant... you will die in your next shower!
SuperLuigiGuys 1 year ago
Nice mixing job. Although the original was better!
scoparch 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
See Hitchcock behind the scenes on the set of Psycho on oldfartschannel. It's good fun.
OldFartsChannel 1 year ago
this shit creeped me fucking out i hate it
love5704 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I loved the remake! I have seen both versions and i can honestly say the orignial was not scary, a thriller, talented (except for being the first with the brains to do this sort of film) and black and white was crap!
I t would have been good at the time, but the colour in the remake makes the the film feel more real and believable,- for me black and white is too out of date now to actually convey real life.
This version is great and is worth its title, the orignial is a crap shambles
gay5panzygrl 1 year ago
@gay5panzygrl The remake has a much better quality, the original was just made with very poor filming technique & technology
carlotapuig 1 year ago
@carlotapuig
are you nuts?? - your saying that Gus Van Sant has better filming techniques than Alfred Hitchcock, the master of suspense??..... wow - this is a real sign of the times.
DJX187 1 year ago
@carlotapuig
actually - all Gus Vant Sant did, was do an exact shot by shot remake of Hitchcock... so technique goes right out the window, because all he did was rip off Hitchcock - and did a terrible job at it as well..... technology in film goes without saying, of course technology is better now than it was then - but that only gets you so far.... there's a reason why modern horror sucks, compared to films like Psycho, the original Halloween and The Shining.
DJX187 1 year ago
PIece of garbage remake this one was! why mess with something when it isn't broken? i think Gus Van Sant should be crucified for this crime. now some remakes can work well like The Thing or The Fly yet those were better than the originals, this one was just a pointless done for money remake.
Johnlindsey289 1 year ago
this is so cheesy
BeanTownKid97 1 year ago
1:01
BUFFALOxBlLL 1 year ago
tHE REMAKE WAS MORE COLORFUL
FearlessFrank77 1 year ago
duh..
Christknight1990 1 year ago
I can't stand Gus Van Sant's lack of camera talent in the remake.
vor92718 1 year ago
Me too! It sucked ass.
xknightmage 1 year ago
Norman Bates' water bill is going to be sky high!!
ScaryMaryMovieGuy 1 year ago 23
I thought it was a waste of time too, until I caught the remake late at night one time. The film is just an homage to the original. Every scene in Psycho is so engrained in our collective consciousness that watching the remake just makes you remember how fucking brilliant the original is. I think thats what its supposed to do. It combines with your memory and emotions of the original to create another viewing experience. Its not a great stand alone movie, its more like an artistic statement.
sailorsteve77 1 year ago 4
Gus Van Sant was a fucking moron...what fucking company would give up millions of dollars to make a shot by shot remake, when there was nothing wrong with the original to begin with??
God what a waste of money!!
Jen8706 2 years ago 78
Gus Van Sant is a great director, I whole-heartedly believe his did this movie because he thought it would be funny. His shower scene itself is unintentional gold.
ContagiousAnalCancer 2 years ago
wow that's a joke if I ever heard it.
Jen8706 1 year ago
@Jen8706 It was an experiment.
groundge2 1 year ago
@Jen8706 That's not even the worst part. Who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to cast Vince fucking Vaghn as Norman Bates?
greenpeach20 1 year ago
@Jen8706 I think they wanted to see it in color. |D
Puddingpuffin 1 year ago
@Jen8706
Most agree, where The Thing and The Fly remakes back in the 80's done for money like this one or were there's something wrong with the originals to begin with as Cronenberg and Carpenter did something better right?
Johnlindsey289 1 year ago
@Jen8706 What remake is not a waste of money. Please mention one remake that is better than the original and I wont take your comment as a waste of time on your part.
What Van Sant showed here is that remakes are remakes, no one will ever deem them as good as the first one no matter how close to the original they are. Of course I preferred the first original, but that didn't stop me from enjoying the remake. It was the act of getting everything almost exactly the same that I admire.
cannibalsuitcare 1 year ago
@cannibalsuitcare How about "Willy Wonka" that remake kicked-ass..
freedomland11 1 year ago
The Remake was HORRIBLE!
gagagagn3 2 years ago 80
@gagagagn3 That's an understatement
greenpeach20 1 year ago
@gagagagn3 Bates was horridly re-cast. Bale would've been good, but he'd done American Psycho.
comexland 1 year ago
@gagagagn3 That's like saying the first one is horrible, because they are essentially the same movie, only one is in colour.
cannibalsuitcare 1 year ago
@cannibalsuitcare when I watch a Remake I expect something new, fresh, surprising. What else is that the acting was very bad in the movie, and there where some things not in the original that they put in the remake, that just seemed redicolous - have you seen the shower scene? I wouldn't dare to call the first one a bad movie, what I meant is, that the remake was useless because they didn't put anything original in it. I probably should have exactly said what I meant, I guess.
gagagagn3 1 year ago
@gagagagn3
Do you think The Thing and The Fly were better remakes than this trash? the origina; Psycho is still loved and enjoyed today. The original Thing and Fly movies were unloved hokey 50's b-movies that had something wrong with them because they had no time or technology to do their ideas justice at the time until two talented directors who grew up on the original movies made something fresh and better then their original movies.
Johnlindsey289 1 year ago
@Johnlindsey289 why should I think that? :-S
gagagagn3 1 year ago
@gagagagn3
You seen both Thing and Fly right?
Johnlindsey289 1 year ago
@Johnlindsey289 no
gagagagn3 1 year ago
@cannibalsuitcare no i think the acting is better in the original lol
therisaissoadjective 1 year ago
There really isn't any comparison between the 1960 and the 1998 re-make. Alfred Hitchcock wins hands-down. He was a genius at cinematography and direction- period.
PJCoan 2 years ago 5
You know, i've never seen the classic or remake and before reading your comment I had already guessed the classic was better... Remakes rarely beat a classic. Thank you for making my opinionated prediction come true.
KimYungSoo 2 years ago
lol beethovens 3rd
mrcoolsuper1 2 years ago
a good job, guys!
ganeesh 2 years ago
remake stojí za hovno! staré psycho je nejlepší
petan97 2 years ago
The original is so much better. I don't like the remake, it's a cheap knock-off. I like Vince Vaughn, but nobody can do Norman Bates like Anthony Perkins. Hitchcock's version all the Way!
reesescupbrandy1 2 years ago 3
talk about a shot for shot remake
number1sfgiantsfan 2 years ago 2
lol the 60's psycho shot is better..!
ewanthug 2 years ago 3
@ewanthug I agree. Not much was added in the '98 version. Nothing, really.
html0000 2 years ago
@html0000 yeah i agree with you too,98 remake kinda terrible , vince vaughn sucks so bad at it..i mean can you imagine it.,its late 60's though, its genius shot from there shower scene..no lie..alfred are genius for making this.and tony was good at it,and vince failed..sorry~
ewanthug 2 years ago
Nah, remake is.(cause we got to see Anne Heche naked). ;)
thriller2rayne 2 years ago
amen too that
chubkuriboh 2 years ago
yeah
ewanthug 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchcock will always be shit!!!
SaintJimmy007 2 years ago
He always had a way to make you feel fear and anguish even in scenes were there was no particular reason to feel so.And all these without the stupid splatter things.Hitchock was and wil be the best thriller filmaker
rapslayer7 2 years ago 2
Orginial was the best beacusee like even if u remake a scene dead on they horror industry thinks that the audince will react the same. orgiinal pyscho was a classic as well as well this scene. Hitchcock dident use blood and gore to portay a major role in making it scary. It was the suspence that really builds and makes this movie a classic in my eyes. Buttt all in all the Orginial is best... NO DOUBT :)
GG100FDZ 2 years ago
the point is can you follow a script? everyone loves do do their version but for the sake ofargument, lets do it the way it was originally intended... that was the idea and i think it was wonderful to do it exactly the way hitchcock first did it
IRONDOG1671 2 years ago
what was the point of remaking this movie if it was filmed exactly the same way as the original?
guywithapen 2 years ago 3
You could say to show respect for the original. But in my opinion, you can make it different while still showing respect for your source material.
Razorsinmysalad 2 years ago
I dunno... respect and exact copying are completely different things.
If we're talking about auteur theory here, then this is actually a slap in the face to Hitchcock.
There is a big difference between paying homage/respect and copying exactly.
guywithapen 2 years ago
cause they can't come up with anything original
wp4866 2 years ago 3
There's just something that ruins, or at least lessens the impact, of the shower scene when it's shown in color. Black and white just seems...classier. I mostly notice this with the blood. Seeing the actual red (or pink in this case) sullies it. The blood washing down the drain seems more symbolic in B&W.
doggiewolfclaw 2 years ago
Hitchcock used hershy's chocolate syrup to make the blood in the original because he wanted the darkness and the contrast, in color this gets lost and yea... it looks faker somehow to me too.
guywithapen 2 years ago
There would be sooooo much more blood
ferrarif40 2 years ago
original wuz the best!no doubt.
MJzlightning01 2 years ago 2
Should have finished on zooming out on the eye and using a shot from the thrid version of the scene: Mel Brooks in High Anxiety. Zoom out from the eye and he says, "That kid gets no tip."
MrJinxo 2 years ago
MrJinxo is right. I'm not a Mel Brooks fan but "That kid gets no tip" was one of the funniest lines in any movie, ever.
blader45bc 2 years ago
nice contrast!
RHCPfan458 2 years ago
What do you mean 're-imagined'? More like ripped off by less talented wannabes.
manxcelt 2 years ago
I know, what is it with so many fucking remakes nowadays, would producers not just come up with there own ideas
Timcookie321 2 years ago
Very cleverly put together! I do enjoy both versions, but the original is better by far!
SistaSeduction 2 years ago
I like the new Version in Color
BaNaNeNkInD19 2 years ago
i like the old one better i dont see why they did the remake it was all exactly same line just crap actors and some pink blood
t9vv6 2 years ago
Anne Heche looks like a ten-year-old boy who just escaped from a concentration camp.
In other words, I'd tap that.
.................NOT!
MorbidBliss22 2 years ago
anne heche = so not sexy!
vince vaughn is no tony perkins!
y would someone remake this?
iloveclassics50 2 years ago
If I wanted to see that much blood in the water, I would watch jaws.
TOHOFIEND54 2 years ago
When