PSYCHO (1998 Remake)

Discussion in 'Misc. Films' started by The Shape, Feb 25, 2008.

  1. The Shape In the shadows

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,492
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    [​IMG]

    Why??? A shot-for-shot remake of one of the best thrillers of all time. Who greenlit this film? More importantly, did any of you like it?

    I think of it as a failed experiment, that never should have happened.
     
  2. matthooper Registered

    Joined:
    May 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    0
    A normal re-make would have been a mistake, but a shot by shot re-make was an abomination.

    There is not a moment in that film that offers anything of value.
     
  3. Gotham Registered

    Joined:
    May 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think I've found a soul on earth who liked this film.
     
  4. The Shape In the shadows

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,492
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    I know, it's pretty much forgotten now, anyway. Nobody even acknowledges that it exists.

    My question is this...who ever though a shot-for-shot remake was a good idea? Why make a remake is you're not going to bring anything new to the table?
     
  5. Gotham Registered

    Joined:
    May 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    0
    Executives. That's who.

    And I'm sure the reason would be to make the film more known to today's audiences. I could ask a fifteen year old (who watches films often, lets say) on the street today, and he would have absolutely no clue about Pyscho.
     
  6. Majik1387 Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Messages:
    41,631
    Likes Received:
    4
    I didn't like it, but I didn't hate it. It was just there.
     
  7. The Shape In the shadows

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,492
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    Yeah, I feel you. The funny thing is that even after the remake was released, I'm sure today's audiences are more aware of the original than the remake.
     
  8. Gotham Registered

    Joined:
    May 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    0
    Certainly. I am angered by today's mainstream audiences. :cmad:
     
  9. The Shape In the shadows

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,492
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    That's a good point. I really didn't feel anything while watching it. You can't hate it, because it's pretty much exactly the same as the original with some very minor updates.
     
  10. matthooper Registered

    Joined:
    May 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,183
    Likes Received:
    0
    The original holds up fairly well but I can understand someone thinking a standard remake could be a good idea, (not me but someone). But if you told someone who didn't know this film existed that they made a shot for shot remake, they would certainly think you were joking. I did when I first heard about it.

    It's not only a bad idea, it's rediculous. I suppose the reasoning is that someone thought it was a perfectly shot film and would be easy to make since it didn't need a screenplay or original direction and also had a built in audience. The problem is it isn't a perfect film in todays age. It's wonderfully shot and is great for what it is, not for what someone else can make it. It's still a product of the 60's and the story doesn't hold up when it the same exact story from the 60's supposedly takes place in the present. It's bordering on insane.
     
  11. Ghostvirus Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    10,861
    Likes Received:
    0
    This movie was horribly mis-cast. Anne Hech, really? Vince Vaughn was alright, but I though Jim Carrey would have been better.
     
  12. The Shape In the shadows

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,492
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    Yeah, maybe a standard remake could have been interesting if it was done in a different way, but as you said, shot-for-shot is insane.

    They tried to add little things for modern audiences -- a little nudity here and there, more violence in the shower scene, Norman Bates *********ing when peeping -- but those things don't really change anything.
     
  13. Lazlo Panaflex Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    5,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not that bad a movie because it was a shot for shot of a good movie to begin with, why the complaining?
     
  14. Timstuff Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    19,920
    Likes Received:
    2
    Because it took no creativity at all. I have no plans of ever seeing this movie because the original was exactly the same, except that it was better since it was made by Hitchcock.
     
  15. The Shape In the shadows

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,492
    Likes Received:
    2,385

    Because it doesn't make any sesne to make the same movie again, shot for shot?
     
  16. odiin Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,867
    Likes Received:
    0
    :wow: That is UNTRUE!

    It brought.

    A. An inferior cast
    B. An inferior director
    c. Colour

    What's not to love there?
     
  17. The Shape In the shadows

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,492
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    Ah, good point there. :funny:

    I'm surprised Vince Vaughn even wanted to try to live up to Anthony Perkins' performance.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"