Watch Psycho II For Free

Touches You

The Worst Film Ever

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

To me then it is sort of odd to make a sequel 23 years after the release of the first movie."Psycho II" was adequate in terms of entertainment, and had an okay story. But it just never reached the same level of its predecessor.It was certainly nice to see Anthony Perkins back in the role of Norman Bates, and also nice to see Meg Tilly perform in this movie.This turned out to be an adequate movie, although you shouldn't get your hopes up for something outstanding. Nor does it really live up to its predecessor in terms of originality or entertainment."Psycho II" hardly has enough contents to support multiple viewings.

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

O.K. For all you classic film fans who know what I'm talking about, the ending of the original Psycho was so terrifying and definitive in that there's no way around it, a sequel couldn't happen. However, Psycho II was released more than two decades after the original, which came out in 1960 (the sequel came out in 1983). That is the biggest flaw with the film, I think. In the original film, when describing Norman Bates' condition with the split personality of his mother, the psychiatrist says "...the battle is over, and the dominant personality has won." Suddenly, Psycho II says that he can be cured and just like that, a court releases Bates from the mental hospital after 22 years of psychiatric work. Of course, many sequels to classic horror films have reversed the endings of those originals to justify them being around; Revenge of the Creature did it with Creature From the Black Lagoon, Revenge of Frankenstein did it with Curse of Frankenstein, and it's also happened with many Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween films. My other problems with the film is that it feels more like a studio film than the original, one reason being the score by Jerry Goldsmith, which isn't bad by any means. Also, one of the victims in the film is what I like to call an "a**hole victim," which is a character who is either cruel to the main character or just unlikable in general, and is only there so he or she can get killed off and the audience doesn't mind at all. However, despite the ending of the original Psycho being reversed, Psycho II makes the story feel justifiable because of Anthony Perkins. We see him as more normal than ever before and we want him to retain his sanity, even as it seems that numerous happenstances are threatening to destroy it again. It also works in my view at least because when the psychiatrist was telling the story of Norman's childhood in the original, I was almost really pitying him, because of how what happened to him as a child was really horrible. During a scene where he tells Mary (Meg Tilly) about the few times his Mother was nice to him, I cried. Norman gradually becomes insane again as the film goes on and it's clear that even though Norman had supposedly been cured, he is still easily susceptible to the bad memories of his house and his mother. What's also great is that the film is able to keep itself upright without succumbing to the more 80s slasher film elements that are present in areas, like a couple of kids sneaking into Norman's fruit cellar to smoke pot and have sex, only for the killer who is supposedly Norman's mother to come after them. One thing that surprised me was how under-utilized the Psycho theme was, as it is only used in the opening, which is basically the shower scene from the original, which is supposed to remind audiences of the terror of the original, although Goldsmith's work is also scary in a way. A final thing I'd like to bring up is that the ending presents a twist on Norman's parentage, which I didn't completely buy, but if I look at it a certain way, it doesn't bother me. I can't help but feel there is some dark irony to this film as well. While Psycho II is certainly not the original Psycho, it is made acceptable and engrossing because of Anthony Perkins' performance, and the different elements put together from both the original and the 80s slasher films make this movie a very good continuation. Francis Ford Coppola said that The Godfather Part III was an epilogue to his Godfather movie saga, and to me, Psycho II is like another chapter, if not an epilogue, in almost the same manner.

The original Psycho was great film. But this is better. This a very scary movie. This is one of the scariest movies from 1983. Never watch it alone. 6.4 is underrating it. It is one of the scariest movie made before 1986. It has great story line. It also has great acting. I do not know how to talk about the plot with out having a lot of spoilers for the first movie. I do not like having spoilers. I just hate spoilers. I did not think the twist in Friday the 13th V was so great. But I hate that there are so many spoilers about it. Saw I will say that this is a scary movie. See it. It has great special effects. Anthony Perkins it very scary in it. Psycho III is better. Still great movie.