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.

This 1998 version of the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock "Psycho" was definitely a remake of the original.Or to put it wisely,it was a shot-for-shot remake of the horror classic.It stars Anne Heche as seductive Marion Crane and Vince Vaughn as the memorable psychotic Norman Bates together with Julianne Moore,Viggo Mortensen and William H. Macy. Director Gus Van Sant tries to provide the contemporary audience of a modern shot-for-shot remake based on the 1959 Robert Bloch novel and it carries practically over the original screenplay of Joseph Stefano as well as the original music of Bernard Herrmann. Too bad that this experiment would fail miserably as it carried over the troubles the 60's movie would provide to present-day viewers like the pacing that proved too slow and difficult and many other troubles.Added to that,comparison versus the original would always be considered such as the performances of the cast which does not match that of the original cast especially Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins as well as the lack of creativity or innovation that it has as the use of audience manipulation by Hitchcock has been commonly used for since the 1960 film has been released. In summary,there was basically limited improvement in this 1998 version except probably that it was shot in color and the use of stereo sound.Sad to say,the special effects used could probably be defined just as a minor improvement compared to the 1960 classic but proved obsolete for modern audiences.

Remakes, huh. Who needs them? Especially when they offer absolutely nothing new or different from the original movie, which in this case, didn't require remaking in any case. Director Gus Van Sant shows himself to be a complete idiot with this completely unnecessary updating of the classic horror film which comes off the worst in every respect. Any fan of the first film should definitely avoid this movie - Van Sant claimed he made it because youngsters wouldn't watch black and white movies, but if that's true then they shouldn't bother watching movies full stop. The only major difference between the two versions is the colour anyway, which doesn't really add anything to the film aside from making the murders slightly gorier to look at.The film is technically proficient, but then it would be with Van Sant slavishly COPYING Hitchcock's direction at all times. The only things the director adds to his new version are some pathetically pretentious inserts of clouds and cows during the various murders and a crude openly sexual side to Norman's obsession (which worked better when merely hinted at in the first film). As for the casting, Van Sant has gone out of his way in assembling both popular and talented actors, so we have the notable likes of Julianne Moore, Viggo Mortensen, William H. Macy ,and Robert Forster filling out the supporting roles. As for the leads, well Anne Heche is unlikable as ever and proves herself to be a million miles away from Janet Leigh, whilst Vince Vaughn is creepy enough for the part but again isn't a match for Anthony Perkins in the original.If the original film didn't exist then I would have enjoyed this a lot more. But it does, so the remake is totally without merit and deserves to be forgotten in due course - what on earth was Van Sant thinking in remaking it shot-for-shot? That kind of ruins the idea of a remake in the first place (i.e. to improve and expand upon the original film's limitations), doesn't it? A totally superfluous addition to modern cinema.