A-Z Horror Movie of the Day..."Psycho 2" (R - 1983 - US)Sub-Genre: Slasher/Thriller My Score: 6.2Cast=6 Acting=7 Plot=7 Ending=6 Story=5 Scare=6 Jump=6 F/X=7 Intense=5 Twist=7After twenty-two years of psychiatric care, Norman Bates attempts to return to a life of solitude, but the specters of his crimes - and his mother - continue to haunt him. "Norman was not convicted of murder. He was found not guilty by reasons of insanity, and since he is no longer insane, he has the right to live a normal life like you and I." Twenty-Three years later they do a sequel? Well it wasn't bad...I liked parts of it. I think what I missed most was Hitchcock's cinematography...that flair of terror was just not there. Second verse, same as the first...a little bit louder and a little bit worse.

The 1960 'Psycho' is one of Alfred Hitchcock's greatest films and while it is high up in my list of "scariest films of all time" it doesn't stop it from being a personal favourite. Mainly for the cinematography, Hitchcock's direction, the music score and Anthony Perkins.Hearing that 'Psycho' had three sequels, my immediate reaction was what's the point especially considering the fiasco that was the 1998 remake. It did strike me initially that 'Psycho' was perfect as it was and didn't need a sequel, let alone three as well as a telefilm spin-off and remake. The first sequel, finally getting round to watching the sequels after a little arm twisting, turned out to be surprisingly good. Not just being a worthy follow-up but also a well above average film in its own way. Is it as good as Hitchcock's film? Not a chance, not as scary or as suspenseful. But considering that expectations were dubious 'Psycho II' was so much better than expected.'Psycho II' starts to drag ever so slightly towards the end and occasionally feels a touch over-plotted. Sadly too the ending is ridiculous and undermines the actually very neat execution of the rest of the film.On the other hand, 'Psycho II' boasts some very stylish and moody cinematography and the setting is still eerie even in colour. Jerry Goldsmith proves himself to be a more than worthy successor to Bernard Hermann, enormous shoes to fill considering Hermann's score in the 1960 film is one of the most iconic chilling music scores in cinema. Goldsmith's score here is lush and ominously haunting without ever intruding.Franklin directs beautifully, having a real knack for creating a creepy atmosphere and suspenseful touch, not quite the unequalled Hitchcockian touch but it is the closest the sequels ever get to having anything resembling it. The script is clever and taut with some touches of darkly wicked humour, while the story is on the most part very neatly paced, highly atmospheric and always coherent with some very imaginative twists.As for the performances, they are also strong. Anthony Perkins returns in his most iconic role and proves that only one person can play this character. Meg Tilly and Vera Miles are very credible too while Dennis Franz and Robert Loggia provide some necessary grit.In summary, surprisingly good and worthy first sequel to a classic. Doesn't disgrace it at all. 7/10 Bethany Cox

It was after seeing Robert Galluzzo's 2010 documentary "The Psycho Legacy", about the making of the three sequels to Alfred Hitchcock's "Pyscho", that I appreciated the talent and energy that went into them. Not just cashing in, they were labours of love, and homages to the original.Anthony Perkins played Norman Bates again and directed "Psycho III". Some think it's the best, but I feel "Psycho II" directed by Aussie Richard Franklin probably faced the biggest challenge in being the first to dust off the Bates Motel register.Apparently the cast and crew enjoyed the experience of working with Tony Perkins except Meg Tilly; it seems they didn't get on although it may have been more him than her. Nonetheless, Meg Tilly is one of the reasons to watch this movie - the camera loved her and her slightly detached style complimented Perkin's unique approach."Psycho II" is complex. By the end, a conga line of people have put on Mother's fright wig and picked up the carving knife. Vera Miles returns as Lila Crane although she has a darker agenda than in the original. A number of people are dispatched in "Psycho II", but we can't be sure Norman is responsible for any of them.It was hard for the sequels to totally avoid seeming like parodies of the original. I think audience anticipation added to that effect; we wait for the equivalents of the surprises in the original: the peephole; Marion in the shower; Martin Balsam on the stairs; Mother in the rocker.There are a number of inventive deaths in all the sequels and Norman is just about the only character left standing in "Psycho II". However none of the deaths have the impact of Janet Leigh's demise in the original.All the sequels have the nudity, stab wounds and gore that Hitch could only hint at. However despite the understanding of all the superficialities that made the murders in the first one so chilling, the sequels missed the key ingredient - the relentlessness.The shower scene in the original goes on and on; Mother (helped by Herrmann's urgent strings) just doesn't know when to stop, and then the camera lingers long on the aftermath. To illustrate the point, another movie where that relentlessness is demonstrated is "Irreversible" - the camera dwells on the carnage in a couple of scenes that are truly shocking.With that said though, all the "Psycho" sequels have their moments, and the considered over-the-top approach of "Psycho II" still delivers a twist or two.

Although there was tremendous potential for a sequel to the original Hitchcock classic, and even good potential in the plot of this particular sequel, the film in itself just doesn't hold up. We're given an interesting premise during the first act of the film, which evolves intriguingly, but as we move more and more into the developments, we're given an absolute cluster of twist upon twits upon twist, and as a film-maker you can't do that. An experienced viewer will immediately feel jaded after a while, fooled almost, and the element of twist loses all its thrill and value when it is being shaken around all over. This along with the totally unnecessary and uncalled for graphic elements, and that entire final chapter of the movie really does come out as something of real silliness. It just turns kind of stupid and forced, really. Not nearly anywhere close to the subtlety this sort of film mandates, and that the original was so masterful at. It's just too much. There's way too much. The cinematography is very good though in parts, and the soundtrack is beautiful: about that, and finally, one could've wished less for the over-complicated route this sequel took, and rather for a more settled, contemplative sequel in that nostalgic tone this film sometimes generates - with a more simple, believable and mature development. This film is excess, overdone, on many levels 'too much' - although in its premise and in some regards it really had strong elements.