Psycho II - IV

I've only ever seen II, way after it originally came out. I remember thinking that it was far better than I'd ever assumed it could be. I haven't really had the urge to rewatch it, and I never caught the rest of them. The whole thing just made me feel sorry for Anthony Perkins, who once had a promising career before Norman Bates brought it to a screaming halt.

There's a really slick scene towards the end of (I think, could be wrong) Psycho 2 where Norman takes out his supposedly real mom with a shovel that was particularly nasty. Hard to tell where they cut the scene and switched the actress with a fake head. Pretty f'ed up.

Drat, now I gotta rent these again! ;D

The Chiller Channel and the Sleuth Channel have both been playing Psycho II lately. I agree that the ending in II is really shocking b/c there doesn't appear to be any edit or cut. If II has any faults it is only that it is a little slow...

I heard that for III they just pretended II never happened. I don't remember much of II and IV so maybe I'll put them on my Neflix Q.

III directly follows the events II. It's more like IV proceeds as if II & III never happened.

II is a weird beast - starts out compellingly, loses its way, and has that ending everyone remembers. Perkins isn't bad in the flick, but he's really great in the last scene. Also on the plus side: Robert Loggia, Dennis Franz, a Tilly, and an Albert Whitlock matte painting instead of the whole motel.

III is little more than a classy-ish slasher flick. But with Jeff Fahey. A good deal campier than II.

IV is kind of a mess, made for Showtime. Mrs. Bates is retconned into a hot mom that gives Norman a boner during wrestling sessions in the yard.

I remember when IV was being shot, there was all sorts of talk about how there were four different endings that were shot in order to preserve the shocking "twist." And you know what the shocking twist was? That there was none.

However, if I were wrestling with Olivia Hussey, I'd probably get a boner too.

The good, the bad, and the eh. II is such a welcome departure from the early '80s slasher cycle that it's probably got a better reputation than it deserves, but it's still pretty good. I remember Franz's murder being particularly well-shot. III feels like an attempt to turn the franchise into another FRIDAY THE 13TH, and it's fairly shitty because of it. I seem to recall a scene with a stoned guitarist wielding bedside lamps in an erotic fashion which was fairly chucklesome, though. And IV is just kind there. It's an okayish prequel, I guess, but there's nothing particularly memorable about it.

Part II is excellent. I remember an interview with Tarantino where he admitted liking II even better than the original. III is good as well, but IV I could certainly do without.

Tarantino is on crack. But we knew that.

II is pretty good, but I think III is the worst because yeah - they tried to make into some F13 80's hair nonsense.

The wikiality of the situatuion is that Psycho IV: The Beginning will be released on DVD in Region 1 as part of a triple feature package with Psycho II and Psycho III on August 14, 2007.


Just noticed that while reading about Part 4.

I like II a lot, and if it's on tv, I usually try to catch it. I've only seen III once on tv, and I wasn't all that impressed, but maybe I have to see the unedited version. IV is decent, and Henry Thomas makes for a good young Norman. Glad that I haven't picked up the dvds yet, now that this triple feature is coming out.

You can't forget about Bates Motel starring Bud Cort and Gregg Henry.

No, but I can damn well try.

Richard Franklin. I think that's what makes 'Psycho II' an impressively sturdy follow-up and not quite total insult to the original film (by the by, Robert Bloch's unrelated to the film but official sequel to the book is a huge piece of shit, just had to get that out there).

I've always been a fan of the guy, seeing him as an under the radar but generally reliable Hitchcock protege; Road Games, Link, Patrick, I've got a big soft spot for them all.

For sequels to a classic they work better than they should. If only Halloween had such quality follow-ups.

Part III has that great scene with the Sheriff eating ice from the ice machine where Norman hid a dead body. The ice has a bit of blood on it. Perkin's reaction is priceless.

Some useless bit of trivia, Perkin's widow was on the second plane that hit the twin towers on 9-11.

Yeah Perkins acting there in that Psycho 3 scene Zod mentions did take the cake.

As for Part 2 I don't remember much but that scene at the end with his mother. Damn that was harsh.

Part II had the awesome knife stab in the mouth. Sickest thing I ever saw up to that time.

That part in II where Tilly finds her mom in the coal pile, the expression on the mom's face haunted me for a few days afterwards. And yeah, the ending was a kind of subtle, out of nowhere twist, and then Norman ices her with the shovel and is re-opened for wacky bizness at the end.

Perkins directed Part III and I always thought he did a decent job. He certainly has better sense for Hitch moments then a certain other copier, (I'm looking at you DePalma!)
The problem with both of these flicks is what came before. Once everyone knows Hitchcock is not associated, then the judging, most of it unfairly, begins. In the era in which they were released, the early to mid-80's; at the height of the slasher, they pull off a surprising amount of tension, skill and art. Perkins is solid of course, all the way through.

Just watched II for the first time in years, and I have to say it holds up very well. Starts off a little slow, with a few plot contrivances (budget cuts keep Norman out of a halfway house, so they put him back in the house where the "troubles" took place), but heats up again right around the time Norman declares "it's starting again."

The movie manages to maintain a degree of class, but sometimes falters with '80s slasher film syndrome. There's some getting-out-of-the-shower nudity that, although yeah I love me some boobs, feels unnecessary (much like Vincent Vaughan's Norman masturbating in the remake), and a murder of a pot smoking teen in the basement that feels straight out of Friday the 13th. Really, that kids body is never found anyway, Dennis Franz and Mrs. Loomis are the damning evidence at the end.

The ending, although it has that awesome shovel slam, feels like a bit of a cheat. Wouldn't it have been even more morally ambiguous to have the killer turn out to be a woman that wanted to be a mother to Norman, but wasn't actually his secret biological mother? Apparently the filmmakers agreed, because the third movie retcons things yet again, saying that Ms. Spool got institutionalized because she had murdered Norman's father and tried to kidnap baby Norman, but that Mrs. Bates actually was his true mother.

Then Bates Motel says Norman dies in an institution. Then Psycho IV ignores all the sequels and spinoffs. Who would have thought a franchise with such convoluted continuity would develop from this concept? It's really very uncomfortable subject matter, but somehow Anthony Perkins makes Norman a truly tragic, yet sympathetic, character.

Beautiful movie as well, with shots of rolling dark clouds over the horizon, and the aerial view of that teenage girl running away from the house.

Are you referring to the Hitchcock original, or the sequels? 'Cause I think Perkins did several great films in the '60s and '70s.

It's not just you! I saw all three sequels to PSYCHO growing up, and I'm fond of II and IV even though I've not seen them since I was little. Perkins elevates the material, and II is genuinely creepy

PS The renting of PSYCHO II lead to a huge fight with my mom when she discovered I'd gotten out an R Rated film and seen it without her knowledge

Are there people who thought the old lady in Psycho II was Norman's real mother? After he just spent an entire film getting his head fucked with by harpy con artists, I always assumed the old woman was screwing with him, too. Or crazy herself.

Dean Cundey, ladies and gentlemen! And reunited with master matte painter Albert Whitlock, who created most of the motel in the sequel (you can see the seam on pause).

So weird this was bumped today - I just this morning bought this at Big Lots for $6.

The sequels used to be circulated on tv a lot, especially IV. The funny thing is, is that when someone brings up Psycho or Norman Bates I don't picture any of the iconic images from the first film but see Norman Bates as a DJ which is completely wrong anyway.

CCH Pounder and Anthony Perkins. I guess they do look kinda similar?


The memory is a funny old thing.

Psycho II just came for me from Netflix today. Gonna watch it soon.

HBO Signature ran Psycho, Psycho II and Psycho III all night this past weekend. They'll probably be on again if anyone's curious.

Funnily enough, I was TA-ing for a horror film class, and Psycho was one of the films on the syllabus. While prepping for class, my girlfriend informed me that she'd never seen Psycho and was not aware of the twist -- I dropped everything I was doing and said, "We are watching the movie NOW." Really fun to watch the movie through a newbie's eyes. She liked Norman so much, we had a little mini-marathon using that three-pack DVD Phil mentioned.

Quickly...

Psycho II is a better film than it has any right to be. Really enjoyable, suspenseful film. I like it a lot. It's sequels like this that make me want to write a book on great "Part IIs." Oh, Meg Tilly, how cute you were...

Psycho III has Anthony Perkins directing himself to one of his worst performances. Compare the Normans from I and II with III, and you'll know what I mean. I do appreciate the continuity with II (characters reappear), and t does have Jeff Fahey, but it's largely forgettable...

Psycho IV had some potential, but it's just bad.

Agree completely. Especially with the meg Tilly cute thing.

It has its charms. Shot by Eastwood's 70s go-to guy, Bruce Surtees, and scored by Carter Burwell, whose best work was apparently ahead of him. Psycho III is fun and weird and lit like Creepshow. Perkins is just having fun on both sides of the camera. But act three seems to be in a hurry to get the whole thing over with.

I like how Psycho IV is just like "fuck it, we're using the Psycho theme." John Landis in a supporting role is distracting.

I've always questioned that cameo by Landis. The flick is trundling along as a kinda cool prequel/sequel thingy with some serious class (I love the shot from the sink's POV) then BAM! Goofy Landis. Why?

Because Mick Garris doesn't know a good idea from a bad one (sure, I'll use the shower scene music for a murder). Nor does screenwriter Joe Stefano, who really, really likes callbacks to his lines from the original film.

As a locations nerd, it's cool to see the old house all fresh and newly painted.

This is so fucking true.

Oh god, no!

Psycho III benefits immensely from crazy Jeff Fahey. I think he out psycho's Anthony Perkins in the movie. Especially in his final scenes.

Plus that scene of him twirling those lamps in front of his naked self while Juliette Cummins dances in front of him and sleazy music is playing is alternately disturbing and hilarious.

No. It. Can't. Be.

Now I'm sad.
ETA: Referring to Meg Tilly pic above.

Not to derail, but that picture of Meg Tilly still looks pretty cute to me.

Well, to be fair it's not awful. But it ain't like it was...

I gathered that Ms. Spool was crazy herself, and latched onto another crazy person in Norman by believing to be his mother, a mistake that would ultimately doom her.

It's an incredible leap of a twist, to imagine that not only would another mentally unstable person end up being the catalyst to reset Norman to his murderous ways, but that a woman of Spool's age and build could also have the physical strength and speed to kill those people and hide the evidence.

The thing that Psycho II has over Psycho III and IV is that there is a mystery -- maybe Norman has cracked, maybe he hasn't. I was probably too harsh in saying III was forgettable -- I mean, that "Fahey twirling lamps near his junk" scene has stayed with me since I saw it as a kid on VHS. :-)

Anyway, after watching Never Let Me Go and The Social Network, is it wrong for me to want Andrew Garfield to be cast as Norman Bates, Jr. in Psycho 5? Maybe call it The Bates Motel instead to keep it classy.

Find some excuse for young Normie, Jr. to inherit the old house and the motel. He's dealing with the fact that he's the son of the most infamous killer of the 20th century and wondering whether or not Daddy's kind of crazy is "in the blood." Continuity with II-IV is totally optional.

I think my fondness for Psycho II makes me believe the unthinkable can be done. Or maybe I'm just psycho, too (hey, Mad Magazine reference!).

Bud Cort hates you.

I think 4 really dropped the ball by not making Norman's mom an old bitty as she was presented in the earlier films. The sexual subtext of Norman's relationship with his mother was always the creepiest aspect of the character, but by not making his mother some frumpy middle aged woman, the ick factor was drastically reduced. Hell, if Olivia Hussey was my mother, I'd get a boner too.

I really wanted to watch that show when I was a kid -- and I hadn't even seen Psycho yet. Wonder if it's worth tracking down. I'm guessing not, but still...

Godammit, nobody saw my PSYCHO update in the recasting thread, did they?

You're right! "Not, but still..."

I don't read that thread. Good call, though. Dude looks like Perkins.

He's got the birdlike awkwardness in a lot of his stuff, as well. Still boggles my mind that Van Sant cast the hulking 6'5 Vince Vaughn as a henpecked mama's boy.