I just want to say that I love the original movie, then again I love Hitchcock. This remake on hearing about it didn't seem too bad; I mean it has a talented cast, a good director and promised to be faithful to the original plot. So what did go wrong? By the way this review has no intention of offending those who love this movie, but in my mind this was not a good movie.

I'll tell you what went wrong(for me that is). Everything! This is a perfect example like I've said already of a remake that is inferior in every possible way to the classic original. It is a remake, minus the terror and suspense of the original, and came across as pointless, even more pointless than the remake of the Wicker Man. I know it is thought as unfair to compare originals to its sequels/remakes, but I feel that I need to compare to show how inferior it was to the Hitchcock.

Gus Van Sant... he is a good director, however every scene in the film lack suspense and consequently the whole film came across as bland and lifeless. Plus it is way too stagey. The cinematography was rather jerky and rushed in places, and the lighting is too bright for a very dark and murderous tale. The black and white cinematography was perfect in capturing the creepy mood in the original Psycho. The script was clunky at best, and the murder sequences that were so traumatising in the original are so badly botched thanks to the redundant flash flames.

The acting was very poor. I don't love Vince Vaughan and I don't hate him. I just like him, but it is fair to say it is dependent on the film. Vaughan is simply not creepy enough as Norman Bates. Anthony Perkins's performance was phenomenal, with his face, his voice and his mannerisms it was one of the most chilling performances of all time. However Vaughan plays the character like an effeminate hunk and is very monotonic throughout... talk about wasted talent. Anne Heche lacks the determination of Janet Leigh, and is more reminiscent of a kookie cutie. And Julianne Moore deserves better, she was wasted really as her Lila was too aggressive. Plus William H Macy in a ridiculously over-sized suit and hat looks uncomfortable as the private detective. In fact, the only redeeming quality was the modern reference about the dangling earphones, that was hilarious. But on the whole, it is badly acted and falls well short as a remake. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Remakes, huh. Who needs them? Especially when they offer absolutely nothing new or different from the original movie, which in this case, didn't require remaking in any case. Director Gus Van Sant shows himself to be a complete idiot with this completely unnecessary updating of the classic horror film which comes off the worst in every respect. Any fan of the first film should definitely avoid this movie - Van Sant claimed he made it because youngsters wouldn't watch black and white movies, but if that's true then they shouldn't bother watching movies full stop. The only major difference between the two versions is the colour anyway, which doesn't really add anything to the film aside from making the murders slightly gorier to look at.

The film is technically proficient, but then it would be with Van Sant slavishly COPYING Hitchcock's direction at all times. The only things the director adds to his new version are some pathetically pretentious inserts of clouds and cows during the various murders and a crude openly sexual side to Norman's obsession (which worked better when merely hinted at in the first film). As for the casting, Van Sant has gone out of his way in assembling both popular and talented actors, so we have the notable likes of Julianne Moore, Viggo Mortensen, William H. Macy ,and Robert Forster filling out the supporting roles. As for the leads, well Anne Heche is unlikable as ever and proves herself to be a million miles away from Janet Leigh, whilst Vince Vaughn is creepy enough for the part but again isn't a match for Anthony Perkins in the original.

If the original film didn't exist then I would have enjoyed this a lot more. But it does, so the remake is totally without merit and deserves to be forgotten in due course - what on earth was Van Sant thinking in remaking it shot-for-shot? That kind of ruins the idea of a remake in the first place (i.e. to improve and expand upon the original film's limitations),doesn't it? A totally superfluous addition to modern cinema.

Director Gus Van Sant is remaking the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock classic or more accurately copying it. Marion Crane (Anne Heche) is sleeping with married Sam Loomis (Viggo Mortensen) and steals $400k from work. She starts to get paranoid. She stops at a roadside motel manned by Norman Bates (Vince Vaughn) with mommy issues. She gets killed in the classic shower scene. Her sister Lila Crane (Julianne Moore) goes to Sam looking for her followed closely by private investigator Milton Arbogast (William H. Macy).

What's the point of this? There are no surprises or tension. Van Sant is using so much from the original that it becomes a filmmaking exercise. The music and many of the shoots are copied right out of the original. This may ultimately be nothing more than an exercise. It may have uses in film or acting classes. Anne Heche's paranoia is compelling although Vince Vaughn has a tougher icon to overcome. The various minor changes in this one can be debated academically but this has no movie-going value.