Kirpianuscus Psycho directed by Anthony Perkins. that is the basis for discover this film who is far to be great but who propose new sides of Norman Bates. proposing few real interesting scenes, using well known scenes from Hitchcock filmography, giving right contrast between the lead character and the other characters, introducing the theme of mass media and the theme of love, transforming Norman Bates in more than a freaky old man closed in his mental illness, it is not a deception for the fans of Psycho and a honorable manner to explore a special character. Perkinsțs high virtue is the science to transforms Bates in a kind of Old Greek tragedy's hero. because the religious references of Maureen, the struggle against the others remands the fate. good point - the delicate love story.it could be better. it is the right observation of each crime/horror fan. but, as piece of the puzzle, it is the useful piece .

jacobjohntaylor1 The first two Psycho movies are good movie. This is better. This is one of the scariest movies ever made. 5.2 is underrating it. This a great movie. It is one of the scariest movies of all time. This is a great movie. It has a great story line. It has great acting. And great special effects. If this movie does not scary you then no movie will. This is one of the best horror movies of all time. It is a must see. Anthony Perkins was a great actor. Diana Scawid is a great actress. Hugh Gillin was a great actor. See this movie is very scary. It is one of the scariest movies of all time. This is a great movie. Great movie. Anthony Perkins was a great film maker.

The Couchpotatoes Just finished watching the third Psycho after watching the first two and even if you can't say it's a bad movie it is not the same as the other two. The first one will always stay a classic. The sequel after so many years wasn't bad either. In the third one I just thought there were a couple of bad actors and lines so it can't be as good as the others. Anthony Perkins though, he will always do great as the psychotic Norman Bates. He has the perfect face for it and his acting is still as believable as in the other ones. To me they should just have limited it to the first two. Don't need to milk out the story more. But if you are a die hard fan you might just like this one as well.

James Hitchcock "Psycho III" is the second sequel to Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" and not only stars Anthony Perkins but was also directed by him. Perkins, in fact, was initially reluctant to appear in "Psycho II", made three years earlier, but by 1986 he seems to have fallen in love with his best-known character; he was to appear in a fourth film in 1990.The events of the film take place one month after the events of "Psycho II". Perkins, having given us Norman mad in Hitchcock's original, and Norman sane (albeit fighting desperately to hold on to his sanity) in its sequel, now gives us Norman mad again. I don't really need to tell you any more of the plot, although there is a new twist in that one of the women ill-fated enough to turn up at the Bates Motel is a suicidal ex-nun who has left her convent after losing her faith in God and inadvertently causing the death of another nun while trying unsuccessfully to kill herself. (The woman's name is Maureen Coyle; she is deliberately given the same initials as Marion Crane, Norman's victim in the original film). The surprise ending of the second film reversed what we thought we knew about Norman's family background; this film reverses the reversal by restoring the status quo ante.Of all the "Psycho" series this is by far the weakest. ("Psycho IV" was, to my surprise, a considerable improvement). It was also a box-office failure, which possibly explains why the fourth instalment was made as a TV movie. Perkins was presumably so obsessed with his character that he wanted to explain what happened to Norman after the events narrated in "Psycho II", and proves himself a capable actor in his portrayal of a man in the grip of an uncontrollable mania. As a director, however, he is in nothing like the same class as Hitchcock or even as Richard Franklin who directed "Psycho II". The action does not flow smoothly, the film at times seems to move too slowly and Perkins achieves the feat of making it seem gruesome without making it in the least scary. Apart from Perkins himself, none of the acting contributions stand out. The religious theme, introduced with the character of Maureen, is not well integrated with the rest of the film. Perkins seems to have gone to the well once too often with this one. 4/10