What a waste of my time!!!

Really Surprised!

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Marion Crane steals a lot of cash from a man whom her boss is in business with. On the way to see her boyfriend, she stops off by an old motel, run by the odd Norman Bates. She is murdered in the shower. Her sister, boyfriend, and a private investigator try to find out where she is, while we learn more about Norman Bates. Psycho is a low life piece by piece remake of the original that is nowhere near as good as the classic 1960's film both in terms of spirit and form but also pretty much ruined the shower scene and turned it into garbage fire. (0/10)

Why did they basically try to remake the original with no changes. it's like they purposely tried to add in the "old school" acting but it just came across corny and very poor! Some parts are word for word it's horrible. They missed a great opportunity to create something wonderful! Luckily Bates Motel was smart enough to do the story justic without ruining it

I was unimpressed by this when it first came out, but I thought I'd give it another chance recently and tried to watch it with an open mind. No; it's still not good. And the thing is, it could have been good, if the cast had found something new in the characters. But they mostly didn't, and I think that's because of the extremely questionable casting decisions. Anne Heche in particular seems lost and floundering in her role, and she is not helped by the crew cut that plays up her resemblance to Pee-Wee Herman. Once you see that, you can't unsee it, and it's Pee-Wee as Marion from then on. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates is another bad choice. Anthony Perkins' Norman is superficially likable, and when he turns scary, the transformation is unsettling. Vaughn's Norman is creepy from the beginning, so there's no unsettling shift when he turns out to be a creep. Viggo Mortensen's affected aw-shucks cowboy accent deprives the Sam Loomis character of its needed gravity; and Julianne Moore tries hard to convey the steely desperation that Vera Miles earlier brought to Lila Crane, but in the end just comes off as cranky. Only William H. Macy brings something new and welcome to his role, giving the Arbogast character a refreshing abrasive charm, different from Martin Balsam, but as good if not better. In the supporting roles, there's nothing much to comment on except maybe for James Remar's note-perfect reproduction of the original film's state trooper.This is intended to be a shot-for-shot remake, yet Van Sant felt compelled to add a couple of needless things. For example, we don't need to see Norman masturbating as he looks through the hole in the wall; it's better if his desire is completely frustrated. And having Lila cut loose with martial-arts moves at the end seems like a gratuitous nod to obligatory female empowerment. In any ordinary movie it would be unremarkable, but in this film, when you know it didn't happen in the original, it sticks out like a sore thumb and you know immediately that it was added for the wrong reasons.I'd like to see someone else try this again. It's not really a BAD idea. It's just bad execution.

I agree that Vince Vaughan's acting is grossly inferior to that of Anthony Perkins. There are some ways in which this version is superior to the original. It's in colour, which is a huge improvement. Julianne Moore's portrayal of Lila Crane is much better than that of Vera Miles.