I would also recommend watching Hitchcock's version first and then enjoying the remake for what it is a unique film that remains a very bizarre and completely fascinating Hollywood experiment. The problem is that almost everyone knows the plot twist and if you don't, then you are more likely to watch the 1960 version. Joseph Stefano's script (based on Robert Bloch's novel) remains terribly effective, as does Bernard Herrmann's musical score, here rerecorded by Danny Elfman. You simply can't go wrong with that kind of plot. After all, it's a remake of the best entry in the genre. As odd as that idea might be, the film remains an extremely effective thriller. How strange is that? The way films were directed and cut in the late 90s was very different than the methods used in the 60s but Psycho (1998) looks and sounds like a 1960 movie. He was reportedly constantly carrying a laptop with him during filming in order to watch the 1960 original anytime during production. Van Sant himself is a great director his 1995 film To Die For is worth watching if you liked Psycho.
Director Gus Van Sant effectively replicates all of Hitchcock's camera angles and cuts. That reason alone makes it worth watching for film enthusiasts or fans of the franchise. I believe Psycho is the only movie that has ever been remade shot-by-shot. Shot-for-shot comparison between the 1960 original and the 1998 remake.
There are still some differences between the two films, most notably the insertion of strange, surreal shots during the murder scenes and minimal alterations to the script in order to make it more relevant to the period of 1998. This time it is shot in color instead of black and white, and of course features a new 90s cast and updated production design. The 1998 movie is neither a sequel nor a prequel it is a shot-by-shot remake of the original.
Then came the great 2013 series (also titled Bates Motel) that acts as a prequel to the Hitchcock film. There was also a crappy TV pilot made in 1987 titled Bates Motel, but the first episode was very bad and didn't gain enough of an audience to garner a full series. Anthony Perkins starred as Norman Bates in all of those, assuring some kind of continuity. There was also a rather dull 1990 TV movie prequel called Psycho IV. There were two surprisingly great sequels, Psycho II (1983) and Psycho III (1986).
Psycho (1998) is not the first movie to expand on the universe created in the 1960 original.
0 kommentar(er)
