Two things crossed my mind when I heard in the 90’s that Gus Van Sant would be making a shot-for-shot remake of Hitchcock’s Psycho. My first thought was ‘Are you insane?!’ My second thought was ‘Shot for shot, huh? That could be quite interesting if it’s handled right. A bit like some kind of cinematic experiment.’

Whilst Van Sant’s film is shot for shot there are some differences. Firstly, he would shoot the film in colour. Secondly, it would be set in the present day. Thirdly, there would be some tweaks here and there regarding specific scenes with one change proving to be quite controversial. More about this later.

With this being a shot-for-shot remake, I don’t feel like I need to provide a plot summary. If you don’t know the plot of Psycho, you need to stop reading this review and GO AND WATCH IT!!! And when I say that, I mean the original. It’s genius and deserves the acclaim it so rightfully received/receives.

Just as the original was lauded, the remake was met with derision when it was released in 1998 and received terrible reviews. But, is it really that bad?

I started out watching the remake with the best intentions. I desperately wanted to like the film and was mentally rooting for the underdog. But my enthusiasm rapidly started to flag the more the film progressed. With this being a remake, comparisons to the original are inevitable and the remake doesn’t stand a chance.

The casting is the main problem, but to be fair, ANY casting of a remake of Psycho would feel wrong. I saw Anne Heche but wanted Janet Leigh, I saw Wiliam H Macy but wanted Martin Balsam… The worst cast actor in this version was, of course, Vince Vaughn who just couldn’t do the character of Norman Bates any justice whatsoever. In Vaughn’s hands, Norman is an irritating, giggly and utterly unlikeable chump. In Anthony Perkins’s hands, he was shy, awkward, vulnerable and completely complex. He was also brilliantly likeable which makes the ending so utterly shocking. Wait until you see the ending of the remake which shows Vaughn wearing a wig, his mother’s clothes and the most unconvincing look on his face EVER. It’s why we still have the Razzies.

It was cool to see the great James Remar in a small role early on and this made me think that the film might not be so bad after all. But this feeling disappeared when I suddenly saw Flea of The Red Hot Chili Peppers also in a small role. ‘F*ck this movie’ I bitterly thought!

I also didn’t like how certain characters were made utterly unlikeable when portrayed by other actors. Lila Crane went from utterly engaging in the original to being utterly hateable in the remake when played by the otherwise brilliant Julianne Moore. The fact that she has a yellow Walkman also made me get all-punchy. Who thought that was a good idea?!

One of the major tweaks concerns the iconic shower scene. In the remake, when Norman spies on Marion as she is getting undressed, he waxes the dolphin. I don’t really have a problem with this. But what I did hate was that they changed the shower scene, making it more graphic and filming it differently. Van Sant really screwed it up! This was the biggest face-palm moment within the remake in my opinion.

Verdict- Is Psycho (1998) really that bad? In a word- YES! After such an iconic and groundbreaking original, any kind of remake would feel like a suicide mission. And this remake epitomises that. It also suffers from the worst thing that a remake can evoke in its audience- it reminds them that could be watching the infinitely superior original instead. In fact, I’m sure many people watching this remake, stopped the film partway through and streamed the original instead. And who can blame them?