Rating of
2/4
It almost seems like a Scooby-Doo episode...
Drive-In Massacre - wrote on 03/30/10
Psycho II is surprisingly a bit better than one might think, especially when going into the film with extremely low expectations. However, it's still very bad.
The original Psycho is one of my all-time favorite films in the history of cinema, probably in my top 10, so I obviously was very hesitant to see the forgotten an rarely-discussed sequels to Hitchcock's 1960 masterpiece, as I thought they would partially ruin the original. Luckily, Psycho II is not very memorable, so it's major flaws hopefully will not take effect on my next viewing of the first film.
The beginning of the film (or should I say the entire film besides the final 20 or so minutes) is a mediocre, if not inexplicably empty send up to the original. Perkins who came off so natural as Norman Bates (probably my favorite performance of the 1960's) seems quite forced in this sequel, especially in the opening, with his awkward behavior and stuttering and stammering, he just seems as if he's another actor taking over the role. I think in certain scenes he gets his groove back, because their are some engaging moments where you really want to watch him, but a lot of it is Perkins trying too hard.
The acting throughout is, for the most part, good...a lot better than acting from other horror movie sequels from the early 1980's. Vera Miles is back and just as good, Robert Loggia and Meg Tilly both do a good job too, helping the film be more than just a complete waste of time.
The biggest problem with this movie is the story, and how can it not be. The 1960 film was so complete and contained that it's pretty much foolish to try and continue the story of Norman Bates. Tom Holland, who is actually a pretty creative horror filmmaker himself (directing both Child's Play and Fright Night) obviously tried his best, but it's just too ridiculous. Right from the beginning, you know it's just going to be stupid, by the mere incomprehensible fact that Norman is released from a mental asylum after killing 7 people. After that the script almost reminds me of an essay where you look in the thesaurus to change the words...the words are different, but they have the same meaning. Throughout the movie you hear quotes from the original, see shots from the original and the story arc itself is virtually the same:
Bates starts off content, then he meets a girl, then he starts becoming nervous over on-going murders, then he starts to loose it, than the murders become revealed, then there's a twist, then Norman is withheld, and then someone explains the entire thing to the audience. It almost seems like a Scooby-Doo episode, where we expect certain plot points to happen in every adventure.
Like I said, it's okay at the beginning, but after that the film begins to free fall and eventually becomes inexcusably boring, and ends so ridiculously, that I just gave up. Put it this way, it's a lot like another very poor sequel, Halloween 2. In Halloween 2, it's revealed that the killer, Michael Myers, has been trying to murder his little sister for the last 2 films, and not, as we thought, a random baby sitter, which spoils the original mystery and creepiness of the first.
So, other then maybe fans of slasher and generic 80's horror films, I can't recommend this because honestly that's all it is. Unlike Hitchcock's film, Psycho II is very dated and unoriginal (unoriginal as in it does not bring anything fresh to the story of Psycho). I especially cannot recommend this to fans of the original film, because trust me it's going to let you down.
