The director changed very little of this Hitchcock masterpiece and although most would say "Why bother?" he does achieve a weird kind of cloning, allowing you to see how a different director and actors will approach a work of long time familiarity. I have been of two minds on this one ever since I saw it in the theater in 1998. While it doesn't measure up to the original (what could?) it does expand our appreciation of that original.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - "Psycho" (Gus Van Sant remnake) - rico 02:23:20 05/16/05 (4)
- Re: Ebert's review - rico 06:51:37 05/16/05 (3)
- Re: And his review of the original - rico 07:01:22 05/16/05 (2)
- astounding review. Thanks! (not usually an Ebert fan) nt - Duilawyer 11:49:40 05/16/05 (1)
- Re: astounding review. Thanks! (not usually an Ebert fan) nt - rico 13:22:51 05/16/05 (0)