Watch Trailer
Add to List
Request Correction
Write Plot
Write Review Movie Information
Quick Reviews
Movie Lists
Movie Talk
Full Movie Reviews
Rating of
4/4
Psycho
SteelCity99 - wrote on 04/21/2018
The hidden beauty of the controversial horror genre has a great advantage. It can symbolize the deepest human fears, including delusion and paranoia, through a monstrous entity or creation. It can bring to the screen terrifying stories of serial killers for the pure fun of scaring audiences. It can visually release supernatural phenomena, extracting most of the shock value from the inexplicableness of the events depicted. In the case of Psycho, the film does not belong to any of the mainstream horror categories. Alfred Hitchcock, the absolute and definitive master of suspense, is the mastermind behind the camera. Interestingly enough, Psycho is strictly his first horror film. The main reason that explains this absolute masterpiece not being in any of the most popularized and mainly lame …
Rating of
4/4
PSYCHOtic.
memento_mori - wrote on 08/07/2013
Who doesn't love Psycho?
It's famous for being a controversial directorial change. It was pretty much a taboo for a director of Hitchcock's level to attempt a horror movie at that time, but I'm glad it paid off tremendously.
I don't know where to begin.
It has been documented that this film's making encountered heaps of problems. Scenes were cut, limitations were large and the anticipation was minimal. It was basically frowned upon by all movie goers at that time. But it worked. Everyone loved it. And that's why it's so brilliant.
I call this strictly a masterpiece, because the way it came together in the end makes me so happy. If anything were different, if another scene was to be added, it wouldn't be the same. That's why it's a masterpiece.
What no one ever talks about is the …
Rating of
3/4
Classic Horror - Classic Hitchcock
stephskie67 - wrote on 04/13/2013
A brilliant film and a classic that has most definitely stood the test of time. It was enjoyable watching a black and white movie and then suddenly realising you didn't notice anyway. Even the actor's clothes didn't seem particularly dated - apart from those bras of Lila Crane (Vera Mills) - but hell, Madonna was wearing those things only a few years ago. What I love about Psycho (and a lot of the older thrillers/slashers) is that it manages to invoke fear and intrepidation without gallons of blood spurting around the room, bones being sawed with grizzly sound effects, close ups of heads exploding etc. Having said this, Psycho did set a new bar for 'violence' and 'sexuality' in movies (apparently Hitchcock had quite a time persuading the studio to let him make the movie). The …
Rating of
4/4
"Psycho" by Yojimbo
Yojimbo - wrote on 01/29/2012
Hitchcock's classic "comedy" featuring the world's most famous mother's boy is one of the most influential films ever made; every serial killer and slasher movie owes something to this, one of the true greats of cinema. Unfortunately, as the character of Norman Bates is SO infamous, this is one of those films I wish I could forget I had ever seen and watch it with fresh eyes, but it is still fascinating to watch the awkwardly shy and fresh-faced Anthony Perkins knowing how the story plays out, especially during the exchange between he and Janet Leigh in the parlour. The only minor flaw is the fact that the first act is stronger than the second inevitably meaning a slight anti-climax, especially since the final scenes include the psychiatrist's speech explaining all which is clearly …
Rating of
4/4
Psycho review
Daniel Corleone - wrote on 09/16/2011
My 2nd viewing of Psycho has never tainted my perception of its brilliance. Setting is in Phoenix Arizona, December 11 in the afternoon and with an unobtrusive relationship between Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) and Sam Loomis (John Gavin). Marion steals $40,000 from work and meets an eclectic Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), owner of a motel she is staying. An old woman murders her in the shower and her body is kept in a trunk of a car dragged under a swamp together with the cash. Marion's sister Lila (Vera Miles), Sam and private detective Milton Arbogast (Martin Balsam) who was hired by Marion’s employer try to search for her. Arbogast is likewise murdered by the old woman. A forensic psychiatrist Dr. Fred Richmond (Simon Oakland) explains the killer’s psyche and reasons for …
Rating of
3.5/4
Such a landmark, it's hard to assess
woody - wrote on 03/12/2011
This movie is Hitchcock's most iconic, one of the landmark films of all time. That makes it difficult for me to evaluate. I can't quite get back to my impressions on first viewing it decades ago. Even then, there was so much generally known about the movie that the complete experience was compromised a little bit. Those first theater audiences got the full effect of seeing something new and unexpected. It's kind of like trying to make all-time top song lists. Marvin Gaye's "I Heard it Through the Grapevine" belongs near the top, I think. It was thrilling and wonderful when it came out. Now, I'm tired of it and don't long to hear it again.
Still, Psycho has much to appreciate, particularly Anthony Perkins' Norman Bates and Hitchcock's direction of the lead actor.
Rating of
4/4
We all go a little mad sometimes!!
mdtinney - wrote on 08/19/2009
I am a big fan of Alfred Hitchcock. I have seen all of his movies, and think all of them are excellent. This one, however, is at the top of the food chain. Psycho is brilliant. Hitchcock gave this film excellent direction, and the acting was superb. Especially Anthony Perkins playing the role of Norman Bates. He always talked so fast, like he was nervous and anxious all the time. When he talked to Marion Crane about his mother, it gave me chills down my spine. "She just...she just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes." At that era, I don't think a better person could have delivered that line than Anthony Perkins. What makes this movie so great is its originality. Sure, there have been lots of films about "psychos," but this is pretty much the first one. The …
Rating of
3.5/4
The original "Psycho"
SmokeScreener - wrote on 06/02/2009
I have always enjoyed this dark, moody film. What impressed me the first time I watched it was how disposable many of the major characters are, the great change in the plot that occurs with the death of Janet Leigh, and the fabulous twist at the end. When I watch it now, knowing all of those things, it is great to see how the film is structured, and to watch Anthony Perkins measured and creepy performance. The film is a true masterpiece, especially if you can remember that it predates every slasher film ever made.
As always, I evaulated the film for scenes of smoking. The film had very little tobacco use. The most prominent scene occurs when the psychiatrist punctuates his diagnosis of Norman Bates by lighting a cigarette. The film earned a SmokeScreeners Rating of 3 Butts. …
Rating of
4/4
Magic. Pure Magic
The SHC - wrote on 03/31/2009
Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 masterpeice is considered to be one of the building blocks of horror films, and is said to be the film that started the slasher genre. Most of this is rightfully said, as this film is truely a msterpeice, and nothing else.
To start off, the cast is absolutely perfect, from the film's doomed lead played by Janet Leigh (Jamie Lee Curtis's mother) to the psychotic and troubled Norman Bates, portrayed so realistically and hauntingly by Anthony Perkins, a true master at his profession. Vera Miles is quite convincing, though at times she can be a tad tiresome. The characters, although origionally characters from a book based loosely on Ed Gein, were absolutely fantastic, though the one who truely stands out is Norman Bates.
The sad thing about "Psycho" …
Rating of
4/4
"She wouldn't harm a fly."
Arbogast1960 - wrote on 03/27/2008
It is often said that, in the battle of book v. film, book always wins. After all, so much more detail can be packed into the 500+ pages of a novel, while a movie frequently begins to creak as it passes the two-hour mark. True, most filmic adaptations do fall short, but not because of any intrinsic fault in the cinema. They fall short because narrow-minded screenwriters feel compelled to shoehorn the book into the film on the book's terms, an endeavor bound to result in something lumpy and ill-fitting. While ticking off the major plot points of the novel and eliding the psychological and observational detail (the meat of any good book), one is naturally going to turn in a film unable to wade past shallow middlebrow waters. Instead, the mood evoked by the novel should be recast in a …
