Here's some reviews of Hitchcock's famous horror film, which I will go Psycho on!
I'm so sorry. Sorry everyone.
The only reason Gus Van Sant's Psycho flopped is this: BOTH MOVIES ARE BAD! (Yea. Ok, foolish me) Hitchcock himself would never have been successful with this movie in the 90s. The truth of the matter is, people who say they love classic films over today's films(eg. Casablanca, Citizen Kane( I assume these are examples of classic films, and you're just bad at sentences.)) say it to give the impression they are intelligent film connoiseurs. (Actually, this may be a hard concept for you to understand, but maybe people just LIKE THEM. I'm a 19-year old arrogant bastard who enjoyed Snakes on a Plane when I watched it, twice. Both admittedly in a very drunken state. So why would I pretend to be a film connoisseur just to impress people? I liked Citizen Kane for it's own merits - the interesting story, the acting, the bit where they sing the song.)Amazon.com:
Please save your ramblings for film students (you'll find these students working at your local one hour photo) (Will I? I'd better go and find some of these people to ramble at, so I can look like a film connoisseur. It's my goal in life.)
I have never watched a horror movie so dull as the original black and white Psycho.(Well, I'm very happy for you.) Nothing in the film is scary (What about when it goes "eh-EH eh-Eh eh-EH?) and the soundtrack is repetitive(repetitive, repetitve, repetitive) and not extremely memorable. The acting is very mediocre (How can it be VERY mediocre?) and I would suggest the remake anyday(Suggest it for what? A beauty pagent? A trip to Mars?). I'll never understand what the big fuss is, the movie stinks (Ooh, have they invented smellovision already?). I'd choose Halloween anyday and it bothers me that people have the audacity to say Halloween is a remake or some kind of copy of Psycho(Damn audacious Psycho-lovers and their stinky Halloween-hating audacity). Halloween may have the character name Sam Loomis--but they are com-pletely different characters. It also has the daughter of Janet Leigh, but Jamie Lee Curtis is much more convincing and just because you the daughter of an actress, it doesn't mean you do the same movies (Well, no. Where're you getting this argument you're replying to from anyway?). Hello people (Hi!), Psycho is merely a boring suspense film(So you found it to contain suspence? Then how was it also boring?...) (they never show anything in full graphic footage(Do you mean it's bad because it lacks gore? Well, I would mock you, but I'm impressed you can write this and wank to the Saw series at the same time)) and I'd recommend Dressed To Kill(a Psycho rip-off made way better(Because Hitchcock was notoriously talentless)), Carrie, Halloween, The Guardian, and even A Nightmare On Elm Street anyday before this lame excuse for a horror film. (Erm... Ok, some of those are good films, I'm not going to argue with that. But that doesn't mean Psycho is bad. It was meant to be slow and suspensefull - that is how you build suspence - and more psychologically scary, as Norman Bates seems like a relativly normal person. I'm sorry he didn't wear a mask and fedora and pig's blood and things from the other films you mentioned that I haven't seen. Well, I'm not actually sorry. But you get the point.)Amazon.com: (Under the Title: Awful Overly Violent Movie)(A title which you never expand upon)
This has got to be the worst movie ever. A plot about a guy that keeps his dead mother's body around and kills people in the shower. Lame (This has got to be the worst movie review ever. A review about Psycho where a guy talks about two plot points and doesn't explain why he found them so bad. Lame.) HOW DO YOU THINK THIS REVIEW HELPS ANYONE? AND HE KILLED ONE PERSON IN THE SHOWER! DID YOU JUST ASSEMBLE THE PLOT FROM TRAILERS YOU SAW ON T.V?
The only admittance I can muster(Erm. Yea, that's a sentence.) for this video is that it was probably influential in its day(Well, there we go then. Let's all go home). However, all the praise heaped on Psycho is basically garnered from that and has very little to go on, in reality (So your argument is that no-one actually likes the film these days? I liked it... Don't I count? WHY WON'T YOU LOOK AT ME?). Nowadays, this movie looks incredibly homemade (incredibly homemade? Oh my... What does that even mean?) and, at times boring, especially during the parts where it is obvious Hitchcock is trying to build "tension."(Hitchcock - what a cunt) Plus, it's in black-and-white, which makes a movie look old right away (Yea. All black-and-white movies are really old and crap. Fucking time-travelling Schindler's list). When Hitchcock tries to bring in the "psychological" element to the movie, it looks even worse, because it is dreadfully apparent that he has no idea what he's talking about (I don't think the film completely lacked a psychological basis) . Thankfully (Praise Jehovah!), someone decided to remake this movie, but that wasn't very astonishing either, since everyone already knows from this movie what the story will be (Well, if you will make a scene-for-scene remake...). Save your money and go to the theater to see any horror movie you want--it's guaranteed to be more believable than this one. (What if I want to see Psycho? Can I go and see that? But the paradox... Oh, the paradox! Help!)Amazon.com:
This film is so boring and in the shower scene it was obviously Bates the wig even from shadow was awful.(Well, you covered a lot of... valid... points there. Let's examine them. Point one, "the film is boring". No. Go away. "It was obviously Bates in the shower scene". Yes. Well, not obviously, but yes. It was the twist. It wouldn't be satisfying if there weren't clues.) SEE THE REMAKE FAR MORE ENTERTAINING! (Why is everyone shouting?)Amazon.com:
Well, I can't state how much I feel this movie is too overrated and medicore at best (Oh, I bet you can. Go on, try. I'll give you a cookie or something). It isn't scary and it is not exciting or violent (It's psychologically scary. It doesn't have to be violent. And it was suspenseful. That isn't the same as boring). The story is very retarded (Do you know what retarded means? Because you act as if you're speaking medically, where severe retardation (A term not used, to my knowledge, anymore) is defined as having an IQ lower than 60. Perhaps I missed that scene, Dr-professor Genius sir, but where was the film's IQ explained?) about a man that fulfiles his position as his dead mother and keeps her body in the basement (You know, I'm not a great writer myself, so I generally leave crappy sentences alone. But if you're going to call a film... an INANIMATE FUCKING OBJECT... a film "retarded", then you could at least use fucking sentences that make fucking sense. . Ohhhh, how interesting (Yes. That's clearly what most people thought), this is exactly the kind of movie I'd want to show to my intelligent teachers or friends (Then why are you insulting it?... Unless! Oh, you're being sarcastic! My sir, you looked like you were going one way, then you took me the other way! Zing!). Yea right.(You're right. Save it for the stupid teachers and friends. Out of interest, why do you have teachers round to watch films?) There are no good effects (What wankers), the acting, story, B and W color, and sets are lame(Stupid lame acting story in B and W with sets) and the let's find Marion sub plot is boring (Well, have you considered dropping acid when you watch films?). No I am not one of those teenagers obsesed with blood or gore and FX, (Neither am I! Let's get married and have loads of half-crap children!) I apreciated the bloodless halloween and Rosemary's Baby (and non-horror films)with interest and admiration(Well, how nice for you). People are always raving that Psycho paved the way for horror movies of the eightess but the truth is that Halloween ignited the formula and copy cats. There wasn't many horror movies in the 60's or 70's so how could Psycho cause this "formalic" version of horror movies (Well, look at what you're actually saying: There weren't that many horror movies before Psycho. Then there were). It couldn't because it wasn't formalic, it was just stupid (I'll let the critics know). Anyhow, a story about killers were bound to come up forth with or without Psycho (What's your point? What's going on here? I'm scared...). And if you think the shower sequence was scary then i must ask you, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN????????(Scotland. Well, to be exact, I spent most of the time since the film was made not existing. Then I spent about 9 months in my mother, in the most acceptable manner. Then I came out of her, and grew up. Now I'm here, writing about your review. Thanks for asking, and where have you been? Was it nice?)
I don't understand why the review of the original Pschyo (Pschyo? You've watched the wrong film...) and the newest version by Gus Van Sant differed. Newsflash people. BOTH WERE EXACTLY THE SAME. (Well, no. They were different. That's not a hard concept to understand.) Almost every shot and every piece of dialogue was exactly the same. (Even you admit only "almost" everything was exactly the same.) And the shots Gus Van Sant decided to actually change were shots that Hitchcock himself wanted to do, but couldn't because of limited budget and technology. (Yet that still makes them different.)