MUBI

Title: Psycho
Year: 1960
Country: USA
Language: English
Genre: Thriller, Mystery
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Writers:Joseph Stefano, Robert Bloch
Cast:
Anthony Perkins
Janet Leigh
Vera Miles
John Gavin
Martin Balsam
John McIntire
Simon Oakland
Frank Albertson
Patricia Hitchcock
Vaughn Taylor
Mort Mills
Rating: 9/10

An untainted masterpiece, Hitchcock proves superbly that he had no impediments to conjure a classic B-movie like other lionized names like Roger Corman, George A. Romero and Russ Meyer etc., and all the more, he could outshine them by a notch.

The film is an authentic template of a first-rate thriller/horror opus, which I will not bother to outline the details (for instance the over-examined bathroom slaughter scene) inasmuch as there are a wealth of professional dissertations everywhere in the digital era. I simply admire the dexterity of the film in exuding its horror-arousing atmosphere. Hitchcock manufactures one of the most disturbingly creepy-cum-maniac killer in the history of cinema. The Oedipus complex patient Norman Bates is a lively product of the hermetic seclusion amid people and a emblem of the loss of morality, also the kill-after-the-epiphany scenario has never blemished its charisma even after 50 years.

The performance is uneven, in spite of the fact that the film earned the one-and-only BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS Oscar nomination for Janet Leigh (which sounds not equivalent to her monumental fame though), a leading-actress-goes-supporting set-up was an unanticipated stunt for its audience at that time, which is rarely seen presently. Anthony Perkins has such a multi-faced once-in-a-lifetime role and it would be an unforgivable sin if he had ruined it (three sequels are perfectly justifiable spin-offs). Vera Miles, John Gavin plus other supporting roles, on the other hand, are the victims of Hitchcock’s “actor equals animal” methodology, they are more like props than real flesh.

Arguably this is my favorite Hitchcock’s film right now, I think only VERTIGO (1958) and NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959) might have the chance to overthrow it from the throne. I know it is definitely my fault and I still don’t figure out how could I miss this two.

P.S.: The top-notch status of the film intrigued a faithfully-copied remake by Gus Van Sant in 1998, whose ill-fated destination was preordained, which I am quite interested in as well after watching this original work.

How do you begin to review one of the greatest horror movies ever made. Everyone knows it’s brilliantly directed and original, but it’s also one of the most unconventional films of the time. Killing of your star half way through is an extremely bold choice, one that only Hitchcock could get away with. Also, there’s not many better choices to base your killer off of next to Ed Gein, America’s most bizarre killer. Having a villain that shares his mind with his mother still comes off as bizarre. The directing is precise, just the way Hitchcock always does it.

While I know I’ll anger a lot of thriller fans, here’s my two cents: this is one of the least enjoyable Hitchcock classics. To clarify: if you compare Psycho to North by Northwest, Strangers on a Train, Vertigo or Rebecca, I can’t see how any self-proclaimed film fan wouldn’t conclude that it falls considerably short. Even other Hitch classics I don’t particularly love or hate (such as The Birds, Rear Window or Marnie) trigger a wider emotional response than the pretty simplistic shock effects which are all Psycho has to offer. Of course there’s some great cinematography, but it isn’t backed by any involving factors other than sheer horror, or the kind of hammy pseudo-psychology Hitchcock already tried his hand on in Spellbound.

My reasonably kind rating of seven out of ten is mostly motivated by its historical importance – even if you take into account that Peeping Tom, which I think is a far superior film with a similar theme, relentlessly flopped earlier in the same year – as it opened the mainstream public’s eyes regarding the horror/thriller genre. But if you’ve seen Psycho once (which, in fact, any film fanatic should), to me there’s no real reason to watch it again.

Oh lord, Psycho. Initially, I didn’t like it as much as, say, Vertigo or North by Northwest. However, I couldn’t stop thinking about this movie for at least 2 weeks after I saw it! Originally planned as a made-for-TV movie, filmed in 3 weeks (1 of which was devoted to the Shower scene, unsurprisingly), this film is brilliant. So much to discuss with this movie, and each killing scene is equally scary, even though the first is the most graphic (I still jump at the second murder of the detective — the arial view of that scene gets me every time).

I agree with Miss Ashley — once you see it, you’re not surprised by it, but that doesn’t make it any less enjoyable to watch. Understandably, Hitchcock’s most famous film.

Hitchcock described his job as “the assembly of pieces of film to create fright” and Psycho is the purest expression of his central belief and artistic vision. It’s been lauded so much we are almost blase to its riches, but it deserves every one of its accolades. It’s a triumph of pure cinema, even though it’s based on Robert Bloch’s book; a film that works because it is a perfect combination of the disparate elements of filmmaking. From the opening shot to the final, chilling frame, Hitch never made a film that took hold of the viewer with such absolute authority.