To me then it is sort of odd to make a sequel 23 years after the release of the first movie."Psycho II" was adequate in terms of entertainment, and had an okay story. But it just never reached the same level of its predecessor.It was certainly nice to see Anthony Perkins back in the role of Norman Bates, and also nice to see Meg Tilly perform in this movie.This turned out to be an adequate movie, although you shouldn't get your hopes up for something outstanding. Nor does it really live up to its predecessor in terms of originality or entertainment."Psycho II" hardly has enough contents to support multiple viewings.

This is one of the best horror movies I have ever seen, and is even better than Psycho. The ending is a little rough and disappointing, but there are a lot of interesting twists, and more importantly, the atmosphere of this movie is incredible. They really make you feel for Norman as a good human being. I almost only gave this 9 stars because of the ending, but its too outstanding to not give a 10.

...because it's not a fair comparison. Hitchcock is long gone.If, however, you judge Psycho II on strictly its own merits, it's pretty good. Or as good as I think a sequel to Psycho could ever be.Anthony Perkins is a large reason for this. He still has it. Many closed doors and strange passageways etched onto his face. Perkins delivers.Jerry Goldsmith - the composer....comes up with something COMPLETELY different than Hermann did. And once again, on its own and without judging it or comparing it to the original, it's quite beautiful and sad.Now I can't say much for the sequels that continued past this one, but Psycho II is a guilty pleasure of mine.

I rated this 6/10. I would have scored it higher, if the movie itself focused more on Bates' internal battle -- I really do find Bates to be a very likable, complex character that struggles SO hard to maintain his sanity, staying HIMSELF, and keeping mother's controlling abusive voice at bay. He really honestly don't WANT to act out his internal killer -- he really is a genuinely good guy, it seems!I really don't care for the gore and violence -- it serves a point, as this is, after all, a sequel to one of the greatest horror movies ever made. I guess you can't really walk in the footsteps of the late great Hitchcock without having SOMEONE butchered with a knife ;-)The many twists and turns the plot has to offer are, well, cleverly written, but also a bit confusing. They'll keep you guessing to the end, who did it etc., and as such, Psycho II is a solid horror thriller, with a very interesting main character -- I just wish they had elaborated more on his troubled mind and quest for maintaining his sanity, instead of sidetracking us with a sometimes a tad too complicated plot.All in all, this movie is sort of a product of it's time -- teen slashers were HOT at the time and Psycho can't really deny its adherence to the ongoing trend back then. But Norman Bates is no Freddy Krueger. He is a good guy, struggling to remain sane -- and really is the hero here!Psycho II is a horror thriller, that COULD have been a very moving psychological drama. Instead we get a little bit of both, so I have a little mixed feelings about it. So my final verdict is, as mentioned: 6/10