PSYCHO sequels in '80s and '90s Horror and Sci-Fi Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

PSYCHO sequels

Author	Comment
Wolfman Joe	PSYCHO sequels	Lead	[-]
Sep 14 05 2:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	With this week's release of PSYCHO II and III on disc, does anyone care to chime in with thoughts on the films? Like most people, I found II surprisingly entertaining, if a bit unneccessary. I need to revist III (preferrably not edited for basic cable airing) to see how that one holds up, but I recall being underwhelmed and feeling that Norman should've been left alone after II. Opinions?
	Remove this ad
blackbiped	Re: PSYCHO sequels	#1	[-]
Sep 14 05 2:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I thought PSYCHO II was pretty good until halfway through, when the Meg Tilly character totally changed. That ruined it for me and I didn't like the rest of it at all. I wasn't too excited about seeing PSYCHO III after that, but was very surprised by how much I liked it. I thought it was much more imaginative and creepy than II. Anthony Perkins did a good job directing it, and handled the black humor very well. Legend, oh legend, the third wheel legend...always in the way.
Zombiewalkin	Re: PSYCHO sequels	#2	[-]
Sep 14 05 3:34 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I thought II was pretty good........wasnt that the one with the shovel to the head at the end? I always thought that scene was pulled off very well.
Carl Eyesnheart	Re: PSYCHO sequels	#3	[-]
Sep 14 05 3:44 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I haven't seen any of these in years, but I remember basically hating them. I somewhat enjoyed the originality being PSYCHO IV: A NEW BEGINNING, but found the other two to being standard Slasher fare. Now though, I really enjoyed PSYCHO II the book by Robert Bloch. That was part of the problem, I read the book and was hoping the movie would be the same, but found out during reading it that it wasn't going to be the same. So I didn't even bother trying to find a way of getting into the theater when it came out. I also enjoyed PSYCHO HOUSE, even though it was a bit of a forced feeling novel. Almost like Bloch did it just because he wanted to be at the house again, but didn't have his heart fully into it, or that he really didn't know how he wanted to use the place again. *SPOILER* It almost seemed to me like maybe, just maybe, there was some regret on his part for having killed off Norman in part II.
TidesOfWerewolves	Re: PSYCHO sequels	#4	[-]
Sep 14 05 4:50 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The first sequel actually turned out pretty good for me. I'm not sure if I've ever seen the third one. I think I remember Olivia Hussy turning up in one of them as Norman's mother, but that's all that comes to mind.
sketchyfrank	Re: PSYCHO sequels (Spoiler!)	#5	[-]
Sep 14 05 11:26 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I thought Part 3 worked better as a direct sequel to the original than Part 2. The whole Diana Scarwid reminding Norman of Marion Crane played out better than the rather ugly transformation of Marion's sister into killer idea. And the film begins with the best bit from Part 2, the cheese sandwich head bash. Frank Dietz www.sketchythings.com
Wolfman Joe	Re: PSYCHO sequels (Spoiler!)	#6	[-]
Sep 15 05 7:03 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* Diana Scarwid reminding Norman of Marion Crane That's dead proof that Norman really is completely nuts!
Doctor 1313	Re: PSYCHO sequels (Spoiler!)	#7	[-]
Sep 17 05 8:50 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I found PSYCHO II entertaining, except for two bits: I didn't like how they changed Vera Miles character from a determined young woman trying to find out what happened to her sister into a revenge-obsessed woman using her own daughter as a pawn/bait with a man she thinks is mentally unstable and dangerous. Secondly, and most unforgivably, Part II changes the classic story and relationship elements of the first movie. It's like in HALLOWEEN II, when we find out that Michael Myers is Laurie Strode's brother, which retroactively changes their relationship in the first movie. Hated that, too. PSYCHO III was a very interesting character study of Norman Bates, but I didn't think it was very scary. The new spin on the shower scene was great, if a bit far-fetched (specifically, when Diana hallucinates that "Mother" is the Virgin Mary). The parts of PSYCHO IV: THE BEGINNING (Homer Simpson: "Everybody loves prequels!") dealing with Norman on the phone-in radio psychology show were good, but I didn't care for the flashbacks or the part after Norman finally hangs up on the radio host. The changes in Norman's backstory were inexcusable, especially since this movie was written by Joseph Stephano, who wrote the original. Norman didn't originate the "not inordinately" line, Marion did. The sheriff's wife says Norma Bates and her lover's bodies were found in bed, and we know they died from poisoning, but Norman drags the man's body downstairs after bashing him in the head when the poison wasn't working fast enough. And what's with the rocking chair rocking by itself at the end? Is the Bates house haunted? And I tend to just forget about the TV movie/pilot BATES MOTEL. DOCTOR 13
SparkieGojira	Re: PSYCHO sequels (Spoiler!)	#8	[-]
Sep 21 05 11:47 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I was glad for the happy ending for Norman in 4.... and must admit my additude to 2 when it was new to pay TV was "Jeeze, if it's a sequal to Psycho it must be good!" By the time 3 came around the whole idea seemed blasphemous so I passed... finally tried to watch it a few times on cable not to long ago, and wanted to enjoy Perkin's debut, but............ BTW does anyone know if Hitchcock had anything at all to do with PSYCHO 2? I think I've read that he mantained an office at Universal right up untill his death, and 2 came out a scant few years after his passing.... "NO BEDS!"
Doctor 1313	Re: PSYCHO sequels (Spoiler!)	#9	[-]
Sep 22 05 8:14 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* BTW does anyone know if Hitchcock had anything at all to do with PSYCHO 2? I think that's doubtful. However, Hitchcock makes a sort of cameo in PSYCHO II with his famous TV profile appearing as a shadow on the dressing cabinet in Mother's bedroom. DOCTOR 13
GAKENSTEIN	Psychobabble....	#10	[-]
Sep 30 05 1:25 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	All this discussion is b******t . Hitchcock's PSYCHO is one of the greatest films, horror or otherwise, ever made. There should have never been any sequels (or remakes) of this genius work. They are bastard children not even a mother like Mrs. Bates could love.
	Remove this ad
sketchyfrank	Re: Psychobabble....	#11	[-]
Oct 2 05 11:16 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* All this discussion is b******t . Thanks for the respect, Gak. Frank Dietz www.sketchythings.com
Rhuvaughn Pynnonen	Re: PSYCHO sequels (Spoiler!)	#12	[-]
Oct 31 05 6:39 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	BTW does anyone know if Hitchcock had anything at all to do with PSYCHO 2? Hitchcock died before he could've had anything to do with the sequel. Both PSYCHO II and PSYCHO III are better than they needed to be. All the producers of the films needed to do was hire Anthony Perkins, and throw the title on the poster, and they'd've made money. Actually, I liked the fact that Vera Miles character changed so profoundly during the 22 years Norman was in the Ha-Ha-Hacienda. Living with tragedies tends to do that to a person. Another major thing going for PSYCHO II was the score, by Jerry Goldsmith. Instead of emulating Bernard Herrmann, which would've been the easy thing to do, he went off in his own direction, with elegant, piano-based music, that still fits the movie like a glove. PSYCHO III, as I recall, was Anthony Perkins directoral debut (and farewell), a job he did very, very well. Instead of a balls-to-the-wall horror movie, it seems to me that PSYCHO III works better as a black comedy. You know, I picked up both of these movies a few weeks ago, and still haven't watched them. . . .
Bloody Thumb	Re: PSYCHO sequels (Spoiler!)	#13	[-]
Nov 1 05 8:13 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	First off, i just want to say that None of the sequels were needed NOR did they come even close to matching a smidgen of the Genius that is the first movie. But you all knew that all ready didn't you? As some one stated above These movies are far better then they needed to be, or they should have been. I like all three of these movies. Part of my enjoyment of these three sequels needs to be credited to the Hitchcock orginal. My love for the Characters in the first is so strong, that i enjoyed these movies mainly because it continued the character created in the first. Are the movies Great? No, but they are okay for what they are.
TidesOfWerewolves	Re: PSYCHO sequels (Spoiler!)	#14	[-]
Nov 2 05 2:41 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I just saw Part 3 and thought it was very watchable. I really think Diana Scarwid is a terrific character actress (she seems to be able to play complete innocents and total crazies) and her character made the movie for me. I agree that it worked better as a character piece than a scarefest. There's something so wonderful about Norman meeting his perfect match in a woman driven by guilt and self-revulsion. Their scenes together were so honestly awkward and genuine. And Perkins' weirdly modulated smile he gives whenever Norman isn't sure how to react is fantastic.
Tor havin fun	4	#15	[-]
Nov 6 05 8:59 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I saw PSYCHO IV at CAA in Beverly Hills with 4e, and I can testify that it's crap. I watched the first 20 minutes then went out to wait in the lobby. The cars passing on Wilshire were more interesting than what was on the screen - it was a tired amalgam of cliches.
Chesterbelloc	Psychos	#16	[-]
Nov 6 05 9:05 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I watched both II and III recently, and I've reversed my opinions on them. I used to think that III was better than II, but now I feel that the second film is a clever homage to Hitchcock, but III is way too much like other exploitation films of its time. I still liked parts of it, especially some of the dialogue between Norman and Diana Scarwid, the opening bell tower scene and that incredibly lit shot of Norman in full Mama regalia. But, overall, PSYCHO II is definitely a better piece of filmmaking.
notredamehesamightybozo	Re: Psychos	#17	[-]
Feb 19 06 3:13 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	An adequate sequel to the original classic simply couldn't be done. I don't think that the subsequent "Psycho" films are in-fact sequels, but rather, are cheap, fun horror/slasher flicks that pay homage to the original just by existing. These movies are not to be watched for what they provide in and of themselves, but rather because they know they're paying tribute to a film classic. It's like when you were seven years old and made your own Superman costume out of bathroom towels. You knew you weren't Clark Kent, but that was okay because nobody else did either. It was the experience that counted. It's almost as if these movies are a sub genre of their own. We know they're going to be cheesy, and they know they're going to be cheesy. It's like a fun Dean Martin 60's flick... we're all here just to have a good time. These films are not great by any stretch of the imagination, but they're pretty well done for what they are and could've been much,much worse. I think it is truly sad that Anthony Perkins died because I'd have loved to see how far he could have gone with this. For the life of me, if they show these things on AMC or WGN, I may not actually sit down and watch them, but I make sure they're on in the background so I can glance up from the computer or whatever I'm doing for the highlights. Each was inherently entertaining on its own, cheesy merits.
Imhoteps Ashes	Re: Psychos	#18	[-]
Apr 8 06 3:51 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	*Quote:* Secondly, and most unforgivably, Part II changes the classic story and relationship elements of the first movie. It's like in HALLOWEEN II, when we find out that Michael Myers is Laurie Strode's brother, which retroactively changes their relationship in the first movie. Hated that, too. Like in DEVIL BAT'S DAUGHTER, where Lugosi is cleared of his crimes in THE DEVIL BAT. That irks me to no end. "Hideous Half-Man, Half-Beast Who Terrorized Millions!" - Tagline, WEREWOLF OF LONDON (1935)
Doc Savage	Re: Psychos	#19	[-]
Apr 10 06 9:09 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I kinda like both II and III. Especially in II, where it seems everyone puts on "Mother" clothes -- it's like a demented road show of Charley's Aunt. Seriously, I don't think either are classics, but I like 'em both quite a bit.
Julie Walker	Re: Psychos	#20	[-]
Apr 10 06 11:17 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think Psycho II is a classic horror film/sequel and **** material:) It's well made,entertaining,very suspenseful and frightening. Perkins is wonderful in the film. The rest of the cast does a competent job as well. Part 3 is a nice disturbing sad charecter study and dark comedy. And has some nice stylish lighting touches to the cinematography. But part II remains the superior of these two films in my opinion. The original film may be a classic/masterpiece in its own right. But I happen to think part II is up there as well equally.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

PSYCHO sequels

PSYCHO sequels