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.

Where you try to be exactly like the original but turns out to be a complete messNothing much else to say, same as the original, but not as good. Watch the original. The Movies that could have been made with $20mil and this is what they do, it's just sad there are probably some amazing scripts for movies that will never see the light of day because makers would rather turn garbage like this out instead.

Have you seen it? No? There is likely a very good reason for that...it stinks.Like nearly ALL the endless remakes and reboots that have been plaguing movie goers for the past decade or so....all this is, is a heartless version of the original.It has no heart.It has no soul.It is a retelling of a film that we all love and cherish...and it adds nothing to the story. It improves nothing but the special effects--which held up very well over time--and in some cases belittles the fans of the original...particularly in the fact that they remade the movie at all, without adding anything clever to it.Like so many other remakes it is a hallow shell of the original.

I mainly write this review since I've read so many negative comments about the movie. Well, I think the movie is just fine, the acting is very solid and the story quite interesting to say the least. I believe that van Sant has demonstrated great respect for Hitchcock and picked a great soundtrack. Regarding my verdict: I'd rather watch a show like Clay Pigeon, a comparable movie, then Titanic. Hands down.