|
|
Post by janntosh on Sept 24, 2020 2:39:03 GMT
1. Haven’t watched the whole movie but several scenes. One positive seems to be the production design. The hotel seems to have an eerie Shining like quality to it
2. Wtf were they thinking with the casting of Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche? I mean you had Viggo Mortensen in the vast he would have been a much better choice. And how did they think bony lesbian haircut Anne Heche would be the one to make “mother” angry?
3. If the remake was not a remake and was tue first “adaptation” of the novel, would it have been better received?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 24, 2020 3:08:43 GMT
The original was using the idea that a wimpy guy like Perkins wouldn't be a murderer and the surprise that Leigh would be killed off early.
Vaughn is the athletic type-closer to John Gavin. I wouldn't say Mortensen is comparable to Perkins but he is more vulnerable.
Heche is a bad choice.
Vincent D'Onofrio could have been the Simon Oakland role.
Macy is a bad match for the Balsam role.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Sept 24, 2020 3:27:33 GMT
The original was using the idea that a wimpy guy like Perkins wouldn't be a murderer and the surprise that Leigh would be killed off early. Vaughn is the athletic type-closer to John Gavin. I wouldn't say Mortensen is comparable to Perkins but he is more vulnerable. Heche is a bad choice. Vincent D'Onofrio could have been the Simon Oakland role. Macy is a bad match for the Balsam role. Yep, I completely agree, although I thought Robert Forster was a good choice for Oakland's role. Here's how I would have cast it: Norman Bates - Jeremy Davies (as Roger Ebert suggested) Marion Crane - Drew Barrymore Sam Loomis - Dermot Mulroney Arbogast - Dennis Franz Lila Crane - Vera Farmiga
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 24, 2020 3:33:18 GMT
Ironically I was trying to think who would work for that. I was thinking "Die Hard movie guy" but I zeroed in on Robert Costanzo-who was his brother in Die Hard 2 and gave up. If i had thought of Franz I would have said, that's better.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Sept 24, 2020 3:38:03 GMT
I thought Macy was pretty good myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 24, 2020 3:39:58 GMT
Incidentally there's a Hill Street Blues episode where Franz and a partner get captured by some psycho out for revenge against him and he's tied to a chair and Franz drives him crazy by showing no fear and taunting him.
"I was laughing..."
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Sept 24, 2020 4:27:23 GMT
I thought Macy was pretty good myself. I thought he fit his role the best of anyone in the cast.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 24, 2020 9:26:23 GMT
Haven’t watched the whole movie but several scenes. Please, finish it first.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 24, 2020 9:38:09 GMT
Gus Van Sant said he only made the movie because a remake would have been inevitable. I take that to mean he didn't care to put in much effort. He even adds these stupid "artsy" flashes during certain scenes almost as a fuck you to people.
1. Haven’t watched the whole movie but several scenes. One positive seems to be the production design. The hotel seems to have an eerie Shining like quality to it
Yes, the production design is good.
2. Wtf were they thinking with the casting of Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche? I mean you had Viggo Mortensen in the vast he would have been a much better choice. And how did they think bony lesbian haircut Anne Heche would be the one to make “mother” angry.
I don't have a problem with the casting of Anne Heche and I think Vince Vaughn was an inspired choice. Viggo Mortensen would have been horribly miscast as Norman Bates imo.
3. If the remake was not a remake and was tue first “adaptation” of the novel, would it have been better received?
I have no idea what I would think about the movie if it was original, but it definitely would have been better received.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 24, 2020 9:44:19 GMT
The original was using the idea that a wimpy guy like Perkins wouldn't be a murderer and the surprise that Leigh would be killed off early. Vaughn is the athletic type-closer to John Gavin. I wouldn't say Mortensen is comparable to Perkins but he is more vulnerable. Heche is a bad choice. Vincent D'Onofrio could have been the Simon Oakland role. Macy is a bad match for the Balsam role. Yep, I completely agree, although I thought Robert Forster was a good choice for Oakland's role. Here's how I would have cast it: Norman Bates - Jeremy Davies (as Roger Ebert suggested) Marion Crane - Drew Barrymore Sam Loomis - Dermot Mulroney Arbogast - Dennis Franz Lila Crane - Vera Farmiga I agree with those choices, except for Drew Barrymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Sept 24, 2020 13:54:07 GMT
I could understand if Gus wanted to make a remake that was truer to the book, but it seemed like his whole idea was that a shot by shot remake can be done and he was gonna be the first to prove it. Vince Vaughn I actually thought did pretty well he was definitely creepy in my opinion.
Only thing I didn’t like was that this had to be a shot by shot remake. This came out years after The Fly, Blob, The thing and Body Snatchers remakes. I really wished they had taken the idea and just spiced it up like those remakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 24, 2020 13:59:28 GMT
This remake seems intended more as an experiment (as Van Sant claimed) than as a film all its own. (As spooner5020 wrote, a more faithful adaptation of the book might have worked better.) On that basis, it showed, as Roger Ebert argued, that “genius apparently resides between or beneath the shots, or in chemistry that cannot be timed or counted.” As a movie, it’s pointless, though the use of color is interesting. |
|
Reynard
Sophomore
@reynard
Posts: 674
Likes: 347
 
|
Post by Reynard on Sept 25, 2020 20:55:18 GMT
I re-watched this few months ago, for the first time since renting it on video. No, it hasn't got any better with age and is still really terrible. Vince Vaughn's casting is no doubt the single worst offender. I though the motel set design was much better in Psycho III, which had some really atmospheric nighttime scenes in & outside the motel.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Sept 26, 2020 0:42:16 GMT
I re-watched this few months ago, for the first time since renting it on video. No, it hasn't got any better with age and is still really terrible. Vince Vaughn's casting is no doubt the single worst offender. I though the motel set design was much better in Psycho III, which had some really atmospheric nighttime scenes in & outside the motel. Psycho III had its problems, but I still really love that sleazy atmosphere it took on, reminiscent of Blood Simple almost.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Sept 26, 2020 18:10:49 GMT
This remake seems intended more as an experiment (as Van Sant claimed) than as a film all its own. (As spooner5020 wrote, a more faithful adaptation of the book might have worked better.) On that basis, it showed, as Roger Ebert argued, that “genius apparently resides between or beneath the shots, or in chemistry that cannot be timed or counted.” As a movie, it’s pointless, though the use of color is interesting. Van Sant is quoted as saying he made the film "So that no one else would have to", I'm not really sure what he meant by that though.
|
|
Reynard
Sophomore
@reynard
Posts: 674
Likes: 347
|
Post by Reynard on Sept 26, 2020 20:12:00 GMT
This remake seems intended more as an experiment (as Van Sant claimed) than as a film all its own. (As spooner5020 wrote, a more faithful adaptation of the book might have worked better.) On that basis, it showed, as Roger Ebert argued, that “genius apparently resides between or beneath the shots, or in chemistry that cannot be timed or counted.” As a movie, it’s pointless, though the use of color is interesting. Van Sant is quoted as saying he made the film "So that no one else would have to", I'm not really sure what he meant by that though. Fangoria magazine had an interview with Van Sant back when the movie was either being shot or just finished shooting, in which he said that the reason to remake Psycho was to make the story accessible to a new generation of movie goers. According to Van Sant, black & white to younger people means that the actors are dead and the movie probably uninteresting. I remember this well, since in the next issue someone working in a movie merchandise shop wrote to "letters" section, saying that Van Sant's reason is idiotic because young people buy books, posters etc about old movies all the time, Psycho stuff being among top sellers. Reading this thread, I now have a bad feeling that Van Sant has been just throwing around different reasons, hoping that one of them would make his decision to make this film sound less bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by marth on Sept 26, 2020 21:06:48 GMT
I re-watched this few months ago, for the first time since renting it on video. No, it hasn't got any better with age and is still really terrible. Vince Vaughn's casting is no doubt the single worst offender. No doubt about it. Can´t believe how terrible he was. I like the Jeremy Davies choice too.
|
|
