The only real changes that we get with the re-creation (as the people at Universal Studios would have us think) are an updating of the film. It takes place in 1998.  Everything looks new and sounds new.  the money Marion Crane steals that starts the whole plot rolling is $400,000 instead of $40,000.  Little things like that.  The attitude is a bit updated too.  Julianne Moore, as Crane's sister Lila, is more of a tough little go-getter now and even delivers the final blow that K.O.'s Bates at the end.  Little touches here and there.

Aside from that we get exactly the same movie.  Same shots, same blocking, same script, same music (nicely adapted by Danny Elfman, whose work I've always enjoyed), and, despite the talents of a great cast and solid director, it just doesn't grab like Hitchcock's.  Oh a few audience members jumped and screamed at places which was nice to see but they were  young and probably never saw the original.  hat's were the film works really: if you haven't seen it before see it.  If you have seen the original you'll most likely feel like you've wasted your time.  Van Sant's a good director but when it comes to suspense thrillers you can't top The Master.

There's still stuff to enjoy though.  Vince Vaughn is very good as Norman Bates.  He doesn't try to out-do Perkins (who could?) at all. He does his own thing and it works.  William H. Macy is solid as well
as the private eye on Marion Crane's tail and Julianne Moore has spunk to spare.  The only weak link cast wise are Viggo Mortensen as Crane's boyfriend.  Mind you, the part has always been admitably under written but here he just comes across as a slime-bag.  As for Anne Heche as Marion Crane: well...she's no Janet Leigh but she tries hard.

Now the hard part: an overall rating.  As I said before I'm pretty indifferent to the whole thing so I'll play it safe.

5 out of 10.

The big buzz in the movie world (aside from the preview for "Star Wars Episode 1") right now is the opening of Gus Van Sant's remake of  "Psycho", Alfred Hitchcock's classic horror movie that changed the face of horror cinema and moviedom forever.  Without "Psycho" we wouldn't have had "Halloween", nor "Friday the 13th.", nor "Scream".  Horror films would still involve wolfmen or vampires with funny accents.  No maniacs with knives.  No shower scene.  How dull!

Like most people I was suprised when Universal Pictures announced a remake.  Why screw-around with a classic?  However, they did a remake of  "Dial M For Murder" earlier this year (Michael Douglas' "A Perfect Murder") and a remake of "Casablanca" is on the way so there is obviously a trend happening here.  I'll be seeing the new, "improved" version of "Psycho" when it opens but I was inspired to take another look at the original tonight and offer my unbiased opinion.  In short: no matter how good Van Sant's new re-creation is Hitchcock has nothing to worry about!!

Like anything that's good (and I mean really, really good!) it holds up over time.  This movie falls into that catagory.  Case in point: the shower scene.  It's been reshown and copied since its' first showing and it still works.  When Janet Leigh stands showering towards the camera and we see a dark shape through the shower curtain walking towards her we still feel the tension.  When she is brutally stabbed, despite no
real gore, it still hits us pretty hard.  Bernard Herrmann's mythic score pounds into our ears and we are there.  No wonder people ran from the theatre: Hitchcock knew what he was doing!!

Hitchock's style is simple.  He doesn't need flashy camera tricks (his technique was quite flashy for his day but by today's standards he's pretty minimalist) or rapid cuts or buckets of blood to hook an audience.  He simply relies on good performances (Anthony Perkins is still one heck of a nut-case!), a solid script (the new version uses Joseph Stefano's script as well), and his knowledge of the craft of
movie-making.  He mixes the lighting, music, and actors to suck you into the film...never gving away too much information before it's necessary.  We know just enough to stay hooked.  Norman Bates seems like a poor momma's boy trying to keep his "ill" mother from taking the wrap for the murders she's commited.  We sympathize with his dilemma and his performance (an actor's only as good as his or her's director) but as soon as we learn that Bates is his "mother" we're shocked...even though we already know the story!  That's a talented film-maker!

I could go on but why.  We know the story.  We know how good the movie is.  We look forward to the remake with apprehension but with optimism as well.  We'll give it a chance...but when all is said and done and the remake isn't up to snuff and we ask why?  Why try to improve upon perfection?  Try to remember "that we all go a little mad sometimes."

Hitchcock's Original: 10 out of 10!