I think I must have one of those faces you can't help believing.
Two weekends ago we decided to watch the original 'Psycho' after having talked about doing so for some time. Neither of us had seen it, though the film was such a part of culture that I've always known about it and I've known about most of the twists in it. Everyone knows Norman Bates. Everyone knows the shower scene. Everyone knows the music.
I was genuinely surprised by the movie upon our viewing. The visuals were stunning. The black and white was very crisp, giving it a film noir feel. The story, though slightly rudimentary in that way that older films tended to be, was no less engaging than any modern movie. Actually, let me rephrase that as this is going to be a major topic of comparison... it was no less engaging than the very, very few actually good movies that may, by chance, be released in these modern times when 95% of films are complete garbage.
Even though we knew the twists, we were still completely drawn into the story and on the edge of our seats for much of it. Anthony Perkins created such an endearing, sympathetic character in Norman Bates. And I was surprised with just how good looking he was. Very clean-cut, all-American looking. I also feel in a way I could not have fully experienced the film seeing it at a younger age. I've since heard some folks say that the film changes every time you watch it, and certainly I can understand that. While my own mother is not domineering in the way Norma Bates is portrayed in the story, there is definitely a connection I can make with the Norman character and feeling imprisoned in a way by the mother/son relationship.
The infamous house was also visually stunning. In all the films, but especially in black and white in the first. It is so beautifully gothic and iconic. Again, the choice of filming it in black and white created such a rich, visual experience, I have to use the word "crisp" to describe the overall look.
Also, knowing this film was made in 1960, I did find it shocking to think that some of the visuals and material made it into a movie at that time. Though, it has been widely stated that Hitchcock pushed the envelope in making this and that the choice to do black and white was either fully, or in great part, due to wanting to have blood in the shower scene but the censors not allowing red blood in color films. I think the only two Hitchcock films I've seen in their entirety are 'The Birds' and 'Rear Window', both I first saw as a kid. There was definitely a style to them I was aware of even back then. Films both of their time, but also with an almost surrealist quality to them.
Because we so immensely enjoyed the first film, we decided to also watch the sequels. I remember hearing from some YouTubers years back that the sequels were equally as good, so we figured they'd be a good addition to our Halloween movie choices.
'Psycho II' was a complete surprise. More so than the first because we genuinely had no idea what to expect. The film was incredibly suspenseful. Though there were a few "gory" scenes, they felt more like a nod to the era the movie was made (during the slasher boom of the early 1980s). The film itself felt like a true continuation of the story. The style was different, but the same. It was in color, yet did not lose that sense of style and place. Even as they expanded into the town outside of the motel, you did not feel removed from the world of the original. I cannot say enough about how enjoyable it was.
In this era of remakes, reboots, soft reboots and the like, you are guaranteed that someone will take a classic property and bastardize it. They will take all the charm and the originality of a great, successful film and they will push it through the meat grinder. It is two-fold, because it is an obvious cash grab while at the same time, the writers, directors and producers seem to really think they are paying homage and creating great stories to continue on from the original. But, as with the new 'Exorcist: Believer' and the new 'Halloween' trilogy, it feels as if there is a massive disconnect. The new stories are awful, because modern writers are incompetent. It's almost as if there is an arrogance there, sometimes openly stated, that these new filmmakers can "do it better" than it was done.
Yet, they fail every time.
In 'Psycho II', and then again in 'Psycho III', there are countless nods and references to the original film. Lines of dialog, visuals, all sorts of easter eggs. But, unlike modern films, it never felt like the filmmakers were doing so out of a lack of creativity. It felt like part of the story, part of the film's universe. In movies today most films try sustaining a pulse off of "memberberries". The new material, the new sequel/reboot/etc cannot stand on its own and they fill the running time with references to the past, better film or like the trend had been for quite a while, references to an era (like the 1980s). These 'Psycho' sequels, even as they were not well received from what I've heard so far, did in spades what no filmmaker today can seem to do... which is breath genuine, creative life back into the world of a classic film.
And once again, Anthony Perkin's in the sequels gives such an amazing performance as this man living with mental torment. At the beginning of the second film, I did have a moment where I perhaps thought him to just be parodying the character of Norman Bates because of how jaded modern films have made me concerning bringing back iconic characters. But my mind shifted and I saw that this was not like what I was used to. I have to believe Perkins, as well as the filmmakers involved, all genuinely cared about doing justice to the original.
The twists in the second film at points could have possibly been interpreted as predictable. I tend to watch thrillers and mysteries and constantly try figuring them out as I am watching. But, even doing so with this movie, I was completely drawn into the story and mystery. Even if some of my theories proved correct, I was still somewhat shocked and highly entertained. And the final scene of the film literally had me cheering.
This, of course, set a high bar for the third film. I found that one no less enjoyable than the other two, though if I had to lobby a criticism I'd say it was probably the weakest of the three. I mean no disparagement to it because it was also incredibly engaging and enjoyable. It made Norman Bates even MORE sympathetic than the other two films. It is so funny how these movies do that, making you care about the plight of this man who is, for all intents and purposes, a murderer. Though the movies also ask compelling questions about rehabilitation and mental illness. I think far ahead of its time in some respects.
Stylistically, we joked that the third movie almost felt like a western. The opening visuals seemed to lean into it. The desert area surrounding the motel/town looking especially dusty, with tumbleweeds blowing. There's a character with the nickname "Duke", which immediately made me think of John Wayne. Really, throughout the movie many of the set pieces were literally covered in dust. Norman gets up from a couch at one point and there's a literal cloud of dust that emits from the sofa.
This third installment also was a bit of a "love story", and you are cheering for Norman the whole time. Perkins really sells the struggle of the mental illness this man is going through. And the ending, from one bizarre angle, is almost triumphant. Though also sad as it hints to concepts of a person not being able to escape their destiny.
There is a part 4, which was a made-for-tv movie. I guess the kid from 'E.T.' plays a young Norman Bates in flashbacks, but Anthony Perkins does reprise his role in it. I've adored this experience so much I am actually going to purchase the physical copies of the films. I see all four are available in a box set for $16 on Amazon. It almost seems like a travesty that these films would be at such a bargain basement price. Once we get that we'll watch the final one, though I feel like it probably won't live up to the rest.
Another point to be made was how you could see in the first film the genesis of so many iconic elements of future horror films. There is a character named Sam Loomis which would become the name of Michael Myer's psychiatrist in the 'Halloween' movies. 'Scream' of course, referencing 'Psycho' and 'Halloween' multiple times. I guess Jamie Lee Curtis was even considered for one of the main roles in 'Psycho II'. So many visuals, concepts, pieces of dialog all went on to give life to endless films in the future. But, again, back in an era when the filmmakers (most of the time) did so creatively, and not simply as memberberries for the dumb, sheep audience to ingest.
I do have to say I also loved Jerry Goldsmith's score for the second film. I've already seen the original vinyl records for sale on eBay for less than twenty dollars. I am definitely going to pick it up.
As with seeing the rerelease of the original 'Exorcist', I felt such a joy in watching these old films. Truly. I keep talking about what trash modern movies are. How uninspired, uncreative, full of political agenda and bad acting they are. I have become so bitter and jaded with the modern state of film. And I should, because what is being produced by those pedophiles in Hollywood is shit. Being able to go back and see what movies used to be like is a pleasure. Doubly so when they are films I've never seen before, so they can be as new to me as they were to audiences decades ago.
It helps me also to not feel despondent for the current state of things. Not that I am as wrapped up in culture and movies as I was even just 7 or 8 years ago. It is not "my life" like it used to be. I don't feel I am at that level that so many guys my age with YouTube channels are at, that I cringe seeing act like man-children with shelves of action figures behind them in each video. It is fun to enjoy movies. It is fun to escape reality from time to time. You cannot do that in most modern films because the insane leftists have to infuse their movies with their agendas. And maybe I am wrong, and there is agenda in many of these old films I am learning to adore.
If there is, at the very least, filmmakers back then didn't treat their audiences with the level of contempt that Hollywood does now. Modern Hollywood thinks you are stupid and in many cases they outright hate you as the audience. Which is why so many of them instantly blame the audience when their films fail.
The 'Psycho' series has been a thrill to watch. I cannot overstate that. It makes me sad that I know there's only one movie left where I can see Anthony Perkins portraying this character.
I feel like I had so much more to say about this experience, and perhaps I do and will write about it again. But, it is Monday morning, there's work to do, laundry to wash and a work week to mentally accept as inevitable.
I was genuinely surprised by the movie upon our viewing. The visuals were stunning. The black and white was very crisp, giving it a film noir feel. The story, though slightly rudimentary in that way that older films tended to be, was no less engaging than any modern movie. Actually, let me rephrase that as this is going to be a major topic of comparison... it was no less engaging than the very, very few actually good movies that may, by chance, be released in these modern times when 95% of films are complete garbage.
Even though we knew the twists, we were still completely drawn into the story and on the edge of our seats for much of it. Anthony Perkins created such an endearing, sympathetic character in Norman Bates. And I was surprised with just how good looking he was. Very clean-cut, all-American looking. I also feel in a way I could not have fully experienced the film seeing it at a younger age. I've since heard some folks say that the film changes every time you watch it, and certainly I can understand that. While my own mother is not domineering in the way Norma Bates is portrayed in the story, there is definitely a connection I can make with the Norman character and feeling imprisoned in a way by the mother/son relationship.
The infamous house was also visually stunning. In all the films, but especially in black and white in the first. It is so beautifully gothic and iconic. Again, the choice of filming it in black and white created such a rich, visual experience, I have to use the word "crisp" to describe the overall look.
Also, knowing this film was made in 1960, I did find it shocking to think that some of the visuals and material made it into a movie at that time. Though, it has been widely stated that Hitchcock pushed the envelope in making this and that the choice to do black and white was either fully, or in great part, due to wanting to have blood in the shower scene but the censors not allowing red blood in color films. I think the only two Hitchcock films I've seen in their entirety are 'The Birds' and 'Rear Window', both I first saw as a kid. There was definitely a style to them I was aware of even back then. Films both of their time, but also with an almost surrealist quality to them.
Because we so immensely enjoyed the first film, we decided to also watch the sequels. I remember hearing from some YouTubers years back that the sequels were equally as good, so we figured they'd be a good addition to our Halloween movie choices.
'Psycho II' was a complete surprise. More so than the first because we genuinely had no idea what to expect. The film was incredibly suspenseful. Though there were a few "gory" scenes, they felt more like a nod to the era the movie was made (during the slasher boom of the early 1980s). The film itself felt like a true continuation of the story. The style was different, but the same. It was in color, yet did not lose that sense of style and place. Even as they expanded into the town outside of the motel, you did not feel removed from the world of the original. I cannot say enough about how enjoyable it was.
In this era of remakes, reboots, soft reboots and the like, you are guaranteed that someone will take a classic property and bastardize it. They will take all the charm and the originality of a great, successful film and they will push it through the meat grinder. It is two-fold, because it is an obvious cash grab while at the same time, the writers, directors and producers seem to really think they are paying homage and creating great stories to continue on from the original. But, as with the new 'Exorcist: Believer' and the new 'Halloween' trilogy, it feels as if there is a massive disconnect. The new stories are awful, because modern writers are incompetent. It's almost as if there is an arrogance there, sometimes openly stated, that these new filmmakers can "do it better" than it was done.
Yet, they fail every time.
In 'Psycho II', and then again in 'Psycho III', there are countless nods and references to the original film. Lines of dialog, visuals, all sorts of easter eggs. But, unlike modern films, it never felt like the filmmakers were doing so out of a lack of creativity. It felt like part of the story, part of the film's universe. In movies today most films try sustaining a pulse off of "memberberries". The new material, the new sequel/reboot/etc cannot stand on its own and they fill the running time with references to the past, better film or like the trend had been for quite a while, references to an era (like the 1980s). These 'Psycho' sequels, even as they were not well received from what I've heard so far, did in spades what no filmmaker today can seem to do... which is breath genuine, creative life back into the world of a classic film.
And once again, Anthony Perkin's in the sequels gives such an amazing performance as this man living with mental torment. At the beginning of the second film, I did have a moment where I perhaps thought him to just be parodying the character of Norman Bates because of how jaded modern films have made me concerning bringing back iconic characters. But my mind shifted and I saw that this was not like what I was used to. I have to believe Perkins, as well as the filmmakers involved, all genuinely cared about doing justice to the original.
The twists in the second film at points could have possibly been interpreted as predictable. I tend to watch thrillers and mysteries and constantly try figuring them out as I am watching. But, even doing so with this movie, I was completely drawn into the story and mystery. Even if some of my theories proved correct, I was still somewhat shocked and highly entertained. And the final scene of the film literally had me cheering.
This, of course, set a high bar for the third film. I found that one no less enjoyable than the other two, though if I had to lobby a criticism I'd say it was probably the weakest of the three. I mean no disparagement to it because it was also incredibly engaging and enjoyable. It made Norman Bates even MORE sympathetic than the other two films. It is so funny how these movies do that, making you care about the plight of this man who is, for all intents and purposes, a murderer. Though the movies also ask compelling questions about rehabilitation and mental illness. I think far ahead of its time in some respects.
Stylistically, we joked that the third movie almost felt like a western. The opening visuals seemed to lean into it. The desert area surrounding the motel/town looking especially dusty, with tumbleweeds blowing. There's a character with the nickname "Duke", which immediately made me think of John Wayne. Really, throughout the movie many of the set pieces were literally covered in dust. Norman gets up from a couch at one point and there's a literal cloud of dust that emits from the sofa.
This third installment also was a bit of a "love story", and you are cheering for Norman the whole time. Perkins really sells the struggle of the mental illness this man is going through. And the ending, from one bizarre angle, is almost triumphant. Though also sad as it hints to concepts of a person not being able to escape their destiny.
There is a part 4, which was a made-for-tv movie. I guess the kid from 'E.T.' plays a young Norman Bates in flashbacks, but Anthony Perkins does reprise his role in it. I've adored this experience so much I am actually going to purchase the physical copies of the films. I see all four are available in a box set for $16 on Amazon. It almost seems like a travesty that these films would be at such a bargain basement price. Once we get that we'll watch the final one, though I feel like it probably won't live up to the rest.
Another point to be made was how you could see in the first film the genesis of so many iconic elements of future horror films. There is a character named Sam Loomis which would become the name of Michael Myer's psychiatrist in the 'Halloween' movies. 'Scream' of course, referencing 'Psycho' and 'Halloween' multiple times. I guess Jamie Lee Curtis was even considered for one of the main roles in 'Psycho II'. So many visuals, concepts, pieces of dialog all went on to give life to endless films in the future. But, again, back in an era when the filmmakers (most of the time) did so creatively, and not simply as memberberries for the dumb, sheep audience to ingest.
I do have to say I also loved Jerry Goldsmith's score for the second film. I've already seen the original vinyl records for sale on eBay for less than twenty dollars. I am definitely going to pick it up.
As with seeing the rerelease of the original 'Exorcist', I felt such a joy in watching these old films. Truly. I keep talking about what trash modern movies are. How uninspired, uncreative, full of political agenda and bad acting they are. I have become so bitter and jaded with the modern state of film. And I should, because what is being produced by those pedophiles in Hollywood is shit. Being able to go back and see what movies used to be like is a pleasure. Doubly so when they are films I've never seen before, so they can be as new to me as they were to audiences decades ago.
It helps me also to not feel despondent for the current state of things. Not that I am as wrapped up in culture and movies as I was even just 7 or 8 years ago. It is not "my life" like it used to be. I don't feel I am at that level that so many guys my age with YouTube channels are at, that I cringe seeing act like man-children with shelves of action figures behind them in each video. It is fun to enjoy movies. It is fun to escape reality from time to time. You cannot do that in most modern films because the insane leftists have to infuse their movies with their agendas. And maybe I am wrong, and there is agenda in many of these old films I am learning to adore.
If there is, at the very least, filmmakers back then didn't treat their audiences with the level of contempt that Hollywood does now. Modern Hollywood thinks you are stupid and in many cases they outright hate you as the audience. Which is why so many of them instantly blame the audience when their films fail.
The 'Psycho' series has been a thrill to watch. I cannot overstate that. It makes me sad that I know there's only one movie left where I can see Anthony Perkins portraying this character.
I feel like I had so much more to say about this experience, and perhaps I do and will write about it again. But, it is Monday morning, there's work to do, laundry to wash and a work week to mentally accept as inevitable.