Psycho

I prefer The Original, i haven't even bothered with the remake.

and don't it's the worst pice of junk ever, trust me! I havint seen nr4 yet whats it about?

Norman is rehabilitated and calls a radio talk show and talks about his childhood.He then says that he'll have to kill again.

ah, is it good?

It's actually really good.
It really lets you see how ****ed up norman's childhood was.

How about none of the above?

How can you not like Psycho?

Norman Bates should have been executed immediately on his arrest in the original.

I have to go with the original Psycho.I have only seen the first and the third.I didnt think the third was as good as the first by a long shot.I still enjoyed the third, but the first had such an effect on me.My mom spoiled the movie before I saw it so...I really wonder what it would have been like if I saw it before my mom spoiled it.

I have recognized Psycho as one of the greatest horror films I have ever watched, but Psycho three didnt really have that feeling of suspense that the first one had that made it so great.

The original will always be my favourite bar non, and despite boasting a strong cast including Saint, Vaughan, Macy, Heche, Moore and Mortesen, the remake just did not cut it (no pun intended). Although it was nowhere near as bad as i originally expected.

of course the 1st is the best,but i have seen it so many times.That is why i chose Psycho 3,because it holds the greatest entertainment value with me.

why dont you like it C-Dic?

I perfered the original black and white one.

I watched the second one today,Anthony Perkins is the quintessential psycho.

Originally posted by tabby999
why dont you like it C-Dic?

It's overrated. May have been shocking back then, but it doesn't stand the test of time, and is more funny than eerie or suspenseful.

Janet Leigh was a hottie, though. Psycho, Manchurian Candidate, Touch of Evil..

it's not over rated, it's probably the most influential horror/suspense film of all time. Most movies that age don't stand the test of time, doesn't mean they shouldn't be recognized as the great achievments that they factually are.

The Original was classic, but the rest (including the remake) were shitty.

Originally posted by BackFire
it's not over rated, it's probably the most influential horror/suspense film of all time. Most movies that age don't stand the test of time, doesn't mean they shouldn't be recognized as the great achievments that they factually are.

Just because a movie is influential, doesn't mean said influenced actually produced anything of substance. Psycho is simple, and I feel, uneffective. Fantastic, it launched one of the greatest and now totally played out genres in cinema being the psychological thriller. It's a genre that is long overdue to be re-invented, but it can't be because it's still plagued by what made Psycho so boring, and it's genre formulaic.

Simplicity. And while it's influence may be "factual" to a degree, meaning only there aren't any "Psycho" clones, it's quality is subjective.

I love being the odd man out. 😛

This whole subjective thing is getting old. Some movies are so blatantly good or bad that the idea of subjectivity needs to go out the window for simple common sense of cinema. If people can't simply respect the monsterous amount of positive aspects of an undeniably infuential film, then that's simple blindness. Good and bad is not always subjective, whether a person LIKED OR DISLIKED a film IS subjective, there is a huge difference.

You dislike Psycho, no problem, but it's praise is well deserved, seeing as it did influence all horror films made after it, either in formula, design, direction, storytelling, or acting. To this day it still effects people who see it for the first time. It must be doing something right if it effects people in this day in age, nearly 50 years after it's initial release. That says something about this film, and how good it really is, regaurdless of your personal feelings about it. A film can be factually good, or factually bad, psycho is one such film.

"Just because a movie is influential, doesn't mean said influenced actually produced anything of substance. Psycho is simple, and I feel, uneffective. Fantastic, it launched one of the greatest and now totally played out genres in cinema being the psychological thriller. It's a genre that is long overdue to be re-invented, but it can't be because it's still plagued by what made Psycho so boring, and it's genre formulaic."

It's no fault of Psycho that the genre it spawned is played out, you can only expect influence to go so far. It's not a fault of pscyho that no one since that film has been able to take it up a notche. It's the fault of the shitty film makers out there today, making films like Saw and other lame attempts to simply shock viewers with an "out of the ass" ending that any moron on speed could think of.

While people still have opinions, subjectivity will always be key, because some elements only work for certain people and so on. It's something people forget too often, personal taste. I respect "Psycho" and it's influence, but the quality of movie itself is what is in question.

I disliked it, you guys liked it. Fair enough.