lojitsu A-Z Horror Movie of the Day..."Psycho 2" (R - 1983 - US)Sub-Genre: Slasher/Thriller My Score: 6.2Cast=6 Acting=7 Plot=7 Ending=6 Story=5 Scare=6 Jump=6 F/X=7 Intense=5 Twist=7After twenty-two years of psychiatric care, Norman Bates attempts to return to a life of solitude, but the specters of his crimes - and his mother - continue to haunt him. "Norman was not convicted of murder. He was found not guilty by reasons of insanity, and since he is no longer insane, he has the right to live a normal life like you and I." Twenty-Three years later they do a sequel? Well it wasn't bad...I liked parts of it. I think what I missed most was Hitchcock's cinematography...that flair of terror was just not there. Second verse, same as the first...a little bit louder and a little bit worse.

zkonedog The original "Psycho", directed by Alfred Hitchcock, is one of the seminal horror films of all-time. However, Hitch didn't believe in sequels, so it took about two decades and a new director (Richard Franklin) to revive this franchise. Surprisingly, it is an entertaining re=entry into the world of Norman Bates.For a basic plot summary, "Psycho II" picks up with Bates (Anthony Perkins) being released from prison after his earlier murders. After being brought back to his motel business, Norman begins to struggle once again with the demons of his past.What really gives this film credence is the return of Perkins as Bates. He does a remarkable job of playing a supposedly "reformed" Bates, both tortured by past memories yet trying to get back on the right mental track. A major role for Vera Miles is also a nice nod to the original.I can't say much about the plot without giving things away, but suffice it to say that it is very thoughtful as horror flicks go. It's never stale, and the ending easily recalls the "shock factor" of the first effort.Thus, "Psycho II" is a solid addition to one of the stalwart thriller/horror franchises. It is well- acted, has an engaging plot, and will at least make you curious about checking out part three.

connorbbalboa O.K. For all you classic film fans who know what I'm talking about, the ending of the original Psycho was so terrifying and definitive in that there's no way around it, a sequel couldn't happen. However, Psycho II was released more than two decades after the original, which came out in 1960 (the sequel came out in 1983). That is the biggest flaw with the film, I think. In the original film, when describing Norman Bates' condition with the split personality of his mother, the psychiatrist says "...the battle is over, and the dominant personality has won." Suddenly, Psycho II says that he can be cured and just like that, a court releases Bates from the mental hospital after 22 years of psychiatric work. Of course, many sequels to classic horror films have reversed the endings of those originals to justify them being around; Revenge of the Creature did it with Creature From the Black Lagoon, Revenge of Frankenstein did it with Curse of Frankenstein, and it's also happened with many Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween films. My other problems with the film is that it feels more like a studio film than the original, one reason being the score by Jerry Goldsmith, which isn't bad by any means. Also, one of the victims in the film is what I like to call an "a**hole victim," which is a character who is either cruel to the main character or just unlikable in general, and is only there so he or she can get killed off and the audience doesn't mind at all. However, despite the ending of the original Psycho being reversed, Psycho II makes the story feel justifiable because of Anthony Perkins. We see him as more normal than ever before and we want him to retain his sanity, even as it seems that numerous happenstances are threatening to destroy it again. It also works in my view at least because when the psychiatrist was telling the story of Norman's childhood in the original, I was almost really pitying him, because of how what happened to him as a child was really horrible. During a scene where he tells Mary (Meg Tilly) about the few times his Mother was nice to him, I cried. Norman gradually becomes insane again as the film goes on and it's clear that even though Norman had supposedly been cured, he is still easily susceptible to the bad memories of his house and his mother. What's also great is that the film is able to keep itself upright without succumbing to the more 80s slasher film elements that are present in areas, like a couple of kids sneaking into Norman's fruit cellar to smoke pot and have sex, only for the killer who is supposedly Norman's mother to come after them. One thing that surprised me was how under-utilized the Psycho theme was, as it is only used in the opening, which is basically the shower scene from the original, which is supposed to remind audiences of the terror of the original, although Goldsmith's work is also scary in a way. A final thing I'd like to bring up is that the ending presents a twist on Norman's parentage, which I didn't completely buy, but if I look at it a certain way, it doesn't bother me. I can't help but feel there is some dark irony to this film as well. While Psycho II is certainly not the original Psycho, it is made acceptable and engrossing because of Anthony Perkins' performance, and the different elements put together from both the original and the 80s slasher films make this movie a very good continuation. Francis Ford Coppola said that The Godfather Part III was an epilogue to his Godfather movie saga, and to me, Psycho II is like another chapter, if not an epilogue, in almost the same manner.

PimpinAinttEasy Dear Richard Franklin, you did manage to make it big in the US with the sequel to Psycho. I enjoyed your Road Games the same week that I watched Psycho 2.Anthony Perkins sure worked in some unusual films like Psycho and Pretty Persuasion before he did Psycho 2. He did look pretty haggard in this film.What were you thinking casting Meg Tilly? She was awful. Physically unattractive and not much of an actress either.The idea to portray Norman Bates as a victim was a good one. Dennis Franz was awesome as ever, trying to mess up Bates civilian life. No wonder De Palma gave him some great roles.The plot was flimsy but intriguing and left the viewer wondering at the end. This was a really solid sequel. It did have some great shots of the house and the motel.There was hardly a dull moment. It was very enjoyable. It is almost like a film of the 60s made in color.Best Regards, Pimpin.(7/10)