Psychose II

I first saw this movie as a horror loving kid, and I loved it. But then, as a grownup, I was reluctant to watch it again since so many films I loved as a kid turned out to be junk, after all. Since I'm a big Meg Tilly fan, I kinda wanted to keep my good memories... so I watched it again, for the same reason (go figure).

Well, it was even better than I remembered. Anthony Perkins gives a truly moving performance, and it's an accomplishment in itself considering the fact that it's an 80's horror movie - not to mentioned the legacy of the first. But the actor proposed a completely convincing continuation of the character. And yes, Tilly is quite good; not at all your average damsel in distress. I wish she'd consider a comeback (she was the ultimate wicked step-mom in Body Snatchers).

All in all, a very nice surprise, and certainly no disgrace to the original.

A Sequel to Alfred Hitchcock's Cult-Classic 'Psycho', 'Psycho II' lives up-to the expectations & turns out to be A Terrific Sequel! Also, Anthony Perkins once again plays Norman Bates, amazingly.

'Psycho II' Synopsis: After 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.

'Psycho II' has a superior start, middle & end. The Thrills are top-notch! Tom Holland's Screenplay is gripping & very well-written. Richard Franklin's Direction is eerie & unsettling. Cinematography is good. Editing is sharp. Art Design is excellent.

Performance-Wise: As mentioned before, Anthony Perkins once again plays Norman Bates, amazingly. He's impeccable in here! Vera Miles is first-rate. Meg Tilly is impressive. Robert Loggia leaves a mark. Dennis Franz is passable.

On the whole, 'Psycho II' is a High-Class Sequel, that Thrills, Scares & above all, Entertains Big Time!

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

The original "Psycho", directed by Alfred Hitchcock, is one of the seminal horror films of all-time. However, Hitch didn't believe in sequels, so it took about two decades and a new director (Richard Franklin) to revive this franchise. Surprisingly, it is an entertaining re=entry into the world of Norman Bates.

For a basic plot summary, "Psycho II" picks up with Bates (Anthony Perkins) being released from prison after his earlier murders. After being brought back to his motel business, Norman begins to struggle once again with the demons of his past.

What really gives this film credence is the return of Perkins as Bates. He does a remarkable job of playing a supposedly "reformed" Bates, both tortured by past memories yet trying to get back on the right mental track. A major role for Vera Miles is also a nice nod to the original.

I can't say much about the plot without giving things away, but suffice it to say that it is very thoughtful as horror flicks go. It's never stale, and the ending easily recalls the "shock factor" of the first effort.

Thus, "Psycho II" is a solid addition to one of the stalwart thriller/horror franchises. It is well- acted, has an engaging plot, and will at least make you curious about checking out part three.

Would Hitchcock approve of this? In general you can say: No. Why? Because he apparently did not like Sequels to his movies (maybe not in general either?). But when this was made, so many years after the original, Hitch was not around to object. And he could have since he had the rights to the original. Something that may not be too common, but was the case, because he did not get as much money as he wanted, but instead could have more rights to the movie, which in the end proved essential.

Now, would this make sense if Perkins did not reprise his iconic role? I would argue that it would have not. There were some initial doubts, but fortunately he came back. There is a bit of a twist and there are quite a few callbacks to the Original. Of course catching lightning in the bottle is not possible. But it is still a valid story and a good continuation.

If you are a fan of the original, I don't think you will be too dissapointed in this (as most have been with the other sequels). But one thing is for sure: Perkins seems to be born to play this role ...