|
|
Post by ck100 on Jun 3, 2023 4:23:37 GMT
It was a bold move to make a sequel to Psycho (1960), and especially after 23 years, but this sequel beat the odds and managed to be something pretty decent. One of the reasons why it works is making the audience feel for Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins being the biggest highlight of the actors) along with good supporting performances. Director Richard Franklin also tries to keep a good amount of suspense during the kills, and also doesn't try to outdo what director Alfred Hitchcock did with the original film. Leonard Maltin Movie Guide Review: Psycho II (1983) - 2.5 out of 4 stars"Surprisingly good sequel, with Perkins in a wonderfully canny reprise of his role as Norman Bates--now being released from asylum, supposedly rehabilitated, returning to his mother's creaky old mansion. Director Franklin builds some terrific suspense scenes, but finally goes for graphic violence towards the end, and tacks on a silly conclusion, undermining an otherwise first-rate shocker."  |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jun 3, 2023 4:25:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 3, 2023 4:40:58 GMT
The ending ruins it for me, but up until the ending it is surprisingly good. There is actual effort put into this movie and the fact that they managed to make a decent Psycho sequel 20 years after the original is something to be admired.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 3, 2023 5:10:11 GMT
The ending ruins it for me, but up until the ending it is surprisingly good. There is actual effort put into this movie and the fact that they managed to make a decent Psycho sequel 20 years after the original is something to be admired. The ending is such ass that the third movie retconned it. But yeah, I agree. As far as it being bold to make it 20 years later, I think its timing a couple years after Hitchcock died is a little sus. |
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Jun 3, 2023 5:29:52 GMT
The ending ruins it for me, but up until the ending it is surprisingly good. There is actual effort put into this movie and the fact that they managed to make a decent Psycho sequel 20 years after the original is something to be admired. But yeah, I agree. As far as it being bold to make it 20 years later, I think its timing a couple years after Hitchcock died is a little sus. I still think Psycho II is pretty good overall, but yeah I don't like how they retcon the original there at the end. I'm glad they retconned the retcon in the third movie haha |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 3, 2023 5:40:59 GMT
The ending ruins it for me, but up until the ending it is surprisingly good. There is actual effort put into this movie and the fact that they managed to make a decent Psycho sequel 20 years after the original is something to be admired. The ending is such ass that the third movie retconned it. But yeah, I agree. As far as it being bold to make it 20 years later, I think its timing a couple years after Hitchcock died is a little sus. I noticed. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 3, 2023 5:43:05 GMT
The ending is such ass that the third movie retconned it. But yeah, I agree. As far as it being bold to make it 20 years later, I think its timing a couple years after Hitchcock died is a little sus. I still think Psycho II is pretty good overall, but yeah I don't like how they retcon the original there at the end. I'm glad they retconned the retcon in the third movie haha |
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Jun 3, 2023 13:25:50 GMT
Yeah good movie until the unnecessary “twist”. Also you could say this is the earliest example of a “legacy” sequel
|
|
|
|
Post by 博:Dr.BLΔD€:锯 on Jun 3, 2023 15:56:36 GMT
Loved it.
Great film.
I am a confirmed Hitchcockian and was sorta dubious way back when. A 2O year sequel?
Saw it as a youngster with a bunch of pals n gals at the local....really enjoyed it.
Good story, great feel, all cast fab.....loved Denis Franz as always ...BUT I have to say.....I Loved the ending....in Spades (LoL)
It was so totally effing unexpected.....and in a packed theatre..not in one's crib on dvd....the combined collective reaction from all was priceless and memorable.
Great stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Jun 3, 2023 17:14:13 GMT
I agree that it's a good sequel and a daring move to make a sequel twenty years later. I'm still not sure if I appreciate that ending.
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Jun 3, 2023 19:27:19 GMT
A solid sequel that goes in a unique direction. The twist ending left me baffled but then III was just lazy by throwing that away. They really just shouldn't have had that twist to begin with.
|
|
jjamp48
Sophomore
@jjamp48
Posts: 488
Likes: 320
|
Post by jjamp48 on Jun 4, 2023 3:17:02 GMT
All things considered, it’s better than it had any right to be. It manages to be a serviceable follow up to a landmark film, and that is probably about all one could have realistically asked for. Also, for being made at more or less the height of the slasher craze, the film manages quite a bit of restraint and doesn’t necessarily give itself over to the genre trappings of the time. The film could have very easily done this, and it is admirable it doesn’t.
Anthony Perkins is the reason to watch. I mean, who wouldn’t want to see how Norman is doing two decades later….especially since he’s newly released. I think the movie gets a lot of mileage out of this concept, and Perkins slips into the role like a pair of old comfy shoes. Kudos to him for being so game. The supporting cast is solid with Meg Tilly being the standout. The scenes between her and Perkins are what makes the film work.
i will push back a little bit on these claims, that I often see around the internet, that it’s some under-appreciated masterpiece. It’s a decent film that maybe wasn’t given a fair shot because it exists in the towering shadow of its predecessor, but get outta here with that BS. I can recommend the movie, but I cannot buy into those overlooked masterpiece claims.
|
|
