Posts by Kevin Richardson29

ruggedjackal46 said:I think you misunderstood me, which is why my analogies to Beckett and Dostoevsky felt off to you.

What I’m saying isn't that the plot is inherently stupid (it does sound silly, sure, but I agree that doesn't necessarily mean anything). What I’m saying is that the plot sounds stupid *in relation* to the first film. Taking the brilliantly crafted relationship between Norman Bates and his mother, dragging it through a sequel, and then revealing it was all a lie (because the real mother is some XY) feels like a total regression from the quality of the first film. Why would I bother watching a sequel that presents this kind of continuation, only to have it undermine the integrity of the original story by throwing in unnecessary, pointless information? Regardless of how well it was directed, you just can't do that to the original story of Psycho.

Well, my bad, I guess I misread what you were getting at.

I suppose I agree that the ending itself is a bit clumsy; it feels a little dated, and maybe it leans a bit too much on a deus ex machina type of thing...
But, maybe that feeling is softened just a tiny bit by those very last few shots. It seems like when Bates starts talking as if he's being commanded by his "real mother," your first thought is naturally that he means his biological mother (which is that cheesy trope you mentioned) and who actually committed these new murders. But once he grabs that shovel and starts lugging it around like that body from the unit, switching between two different voices, you sort of see that the "real" mother isn't Mrs. Bates or her sister, but rather this maternal figure he's constructed as the better half of his split personality.

Though, I might have to agree with you there—it probably would have been better if the resolution had been handled a slightly different way.

Gary James88 said:It’s been a long time since I sat down with Psycho II, and honestly, my memory of it is a bit hazy. That said, I was never really a fan of the sequel. You can have a decent plot and okay acting, but the reason the original was such a massive hit was because the script and direction were groundbreaking for their time. By the time this one came out in 1983, those same tropes had already been chewed up and spit out by Hollywood. Therefore, while the first film changed the game for directors everywhere, the sequel didn't offer anything new to the table.

I suppose I could agree with that, which is more or less what Michelle Gonzalez is saying too.
When it comes to innovation or where it sits in history, it's definitely not its strongest suit, though I guess when I talk about it positively, I'm mostly looking at how it stands on its own merits compared to the original, almost like viewing them as two separate things.

Quote: Cocaine Nights

ruggedjackal46 said:When I use the word "recycling," what I’m really talking about is just circling back to the same old story—revisiting Bates as a killer and once again poking at that messy, complicated issue he had with his mother. But why? What's actually the point of doing that over and over?

Let’s be honest: you can't really judge a movie just by reading a quick synopsis. A summary is just a skeleton; it doesn't give you the soul of the thing. But for me? If the blurb mentions that Norman Bates' biological mother isn't actually his mother—that there's some third party involved in the whole twisted lineage—well, that's enough to get me interested. That one little detail is plenty to make me want to sit down and watch. 🤦 I think I’m officially calling it quits on actually trying to experience this film.

I guess I can't really say what the exact intention was—you’d probably have to ask the director himself about that—but since you brought up Bates, I feel like this movie offers such a different perspective. It still plays around with that whole duality of his character, but it seems to shift the focus toward seeing Bates more as a victim. It feels like a direct nod to Hitchcock's style, because Hitchcock never really judged anyone; he just laid out the conflict between Bates' internal reality and society's expectations, making us question what "normal" even means. That's probably why we get that psychologist's comment at the end about how it wasn't Bates committing the crimes, but his mother instead. Beyond that, there are a few other threads being pulled, and I personally found it pretty interesting to look for those little connections to the original and see which motifs stayed the same and which ones were flipped completely on their head.

Regarding the plot summary—I actually think you might be missing the point a little bit. I wasn't really suggesting that you’d actually enjoy the movie; honestly, that’s exactly why I started this thread in the first place, because I feel like I've read the most contradictory, completely opposing reviews ever, even from pretty respected critics. I guess it feels a bit unfair to judge it just because the premise sounds silly when it's summarized so bluntly. A huge chunk of Hitchcock's films—or even just good movies in general, if you want to look at it that way—can sound pretty underwhelming when you condense them down. To me, the real question is how the narrative layer is handled, or rather, how they actually bring that skeleton to life on screen. That ending you mentioned, which seems a bit goofy, doesn't actually reveal itself until you've sat through two hours of the film where there are very few clues pointing you in that direction, all leading up to a suspenseful moment that, I dare say, might even be stronger than what we saw in the original—though, I should probably add, I did figure out the twist in the original fairly quickly, but again, that's not really the point.
If you only judge a story based on its basic plot rather than how the work is actually brought to life, I guess you could say almost anything about the classics—like maybe looking at Samuel Beckett's Godot as just two guys waiting for a third person, or viewing Crime and Punishment as simply a tale about a guy who kills an old woman with an axe and then feels terrible about it.

When you start getting into Psycho III and IV, I guess it’s a whole different story, because nobody really looks at those in the same light as this film—it feels more like what you'd actually call pure recycling.

Michelle Gonzalez said:Alfred Hitchcock's original "Psycho" was profoundly shocking for several reasons that we tend to overlook in this day and age...
First, Hitchcock cleverly manipulated the audience by framing this primarily as a chase narrative. We watch Janet Leigh flee the city because she has embezzled money, only to have someone suddenly commit a brutal murder out of nowhere! Granted, he carefully curated the atmosphere—using that classic "American Gothic" motel setting—but only just enough so that the killing feels like a genuine shock rather than something completely out of place within the film's logic.
Second, Hitchcock was a pioneer in deconstructing stardom by "removing" the lead actor within the first third of the movie; at that time, Janet Leigh was a top-tier Hollywood superstar. It was an absolute jolt to the system.
To ensure this impact, Hitchcock actually prohibited audiences from entering the theater once the screening had begun—which was quite different from the standard practice in American cinemas back then, where you might catch the tail end of a 7:00 PM showing while waiting for a 9:00 PM feature to start.

Then, there are the underlying themes themselves... elements like transsexuality and necrophilia were topics that absolutely no one was addressing at the time.

That is precisely why any sequel felt utterly senseless, much like Gus Van Sant's remake; though, I suppose that remake serves as a fascinating experiment. Simply performing a "copy and paste" of an existing film, frame for frame, does not actually make it the same movie. I suspect that capturing that strange, unsettling tension was part of Van Sant's curious intention.

I can see where you're coming from there, since the sequel just didn't have the same punch as the original once you take away that specific historical context.
But still, I don't think that takes away from its strengths, and I don't want to keep repeating myself, but it remains a pretty solid follow-up compared to the flood of mediocre remakes we usually see.

ruggedjackal46 said:Perkins' acting and Vera Miles 😕 Based on the brief synopsis over on IMDb, it looks like nothing more than some trashy recycling of the "terrifying" Bates and his mother issues—just a cheap repackaging of a theme we've already seen. They even did Psycho II, so honestly, who knows what other nonsense people will come up with next!

Like I mentioned earlier, I don't think it's quite fair to call it "recycling." While there's definitely a logical connection to the original Psycho and some nods to those classic themes, I feel like the whole thing works as a legitimate sequel that actually flips the character roles on their head.

But, I suppose if you judge a movie solely by its short description, there wouldn't be much point in watching any of them, would there? 😁

Just wanted to apologize upfront—I stumbled upon a thread about the original Psycho remake instead of this sequel, so if I've missed anything, please feel free to delete my posts 😁

So, I actually just sat down and watched the original Psycho followed by Psycho II back-to-back (trying to indulge in the classics a bit), and while I was browsing reviews online, I noticed a massive contradiction. Some people seem to think it’s totally unworthy of the original, calling it a cheap sequel that just leans on Hitchcock without adding any real value, whereas others are hailing it as one of the best sequels ever made and giving it tons of credit for actually pulling it off.
I guess I wanted to ask those of you who have seen it, what do you think?

I have to admit, I probably lean more toward that second group. Trying to follow up on Hitchcock is honestly no easy feat. I don't say that because I think he's untouchable and high-quality (though, he's undeniably a master), but rather because he has such a specific style that makes it immediately obvious whose film you're watching. Plus, Psycho is such a classic that it feels almost set in stone, perfectly composed and balanced in its own way, so it feels like there isn't much left to add to it.
Still, Psycho II manages to pick up that original thread, constantly referencing its predecessor through intertextual motifs, maintaining that sense of suspense—which I know was so vital to Hitchcock—all the way to the end, using the same settings, and balancing subjective and objective realities while still managing to tell the story from a slightly different perspective.