Psycho Reviews

this movie represents my intrusive thoughts so well

Shot for shot remake.. not very daring.

Vince Vaughn can never replace Anthony Perkins, but his performance is alright. This remake offers nothing new and instead is a shot-for-shot remake of the classic, which I don’t understand. The point of remakes is to do something new, which this one never does. 3/10

Shot for shot remake, how dare they try to remake Hitchcock!

Absolutely no reason for this film to have been made.

Not as good as the original. Vince felt out of place in this.

Not the worst movie, but perhaps the worst idea.

As far as entertainment, I could give this a “meh,” but on principle I’m giving it a dislike as it’s one of the least original films I’ve ever seen, acting as an inferior carbon copy of the original, with weird casting and with the only changes they make being bad ones

Incredibly boring. Exact same as the original except for one small audio change that makes Norman a lot worse of a character. The audio mixing in the end scene is weirdly mixed and the background music drowns out the monologue. Why would I ever watch this again over the original?

Step for step like the original, didn’t like funny guy Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates though

Nothing wrong with a shot for shot remake - same as seeing the same theatre with a different cast and director is still interesting. However, her haircut is fucking atrocious, hair and makeup did her so dirty.

idrk what happened

Not as good as the original. Also very weird seeing Vince Vaughn this way! But still a good watch.

Not near as good as the original. A good recreation but can’t compare to the original. Still worth a watch

I’m so disappointed that the director of one of my favorites made… this…

gus van sant goated

Arguably one of the worst remakes of all time, which is truly wild considering it is a line-for-line and shot-for-shot copy of the original masterpiece

Boo I hate remakes that do nothing new

10/10

Nice, not so scary