"Psycho" has gone down in Hollywood history as one of the greatest of horror movies, and even if you've never seen it (which I hadn't until today) you still feel a certain connection to the movie just on the basis of its reputation. That in itself can be a problem, because you're expecting a lot when you watch it for the first time. Unfortunately, for me at least, this didn't quite live up to its billing. It was a good movie, Alfred Hitchcock did a good job of directing with a number of what are today recognized as typical "Hitckcock-ian" touches, particularly with some very effective camera work, and basically the cast, headed by Anthony Perkins as motel owner Norman Bates and supported by Janet Leigh, Vera Miles, John Gavin and Martin Balsam (I would say in that order of importance to the story) did a fine job. Still, I was expecting something more.
First, I would call this more of a suspense movie with a touch of slasher movie thrown in than a horror movie, although that's admittedly through a modern lens. There are really only a couple of scenes that were "horrific" - one being the famous shower scene and one being the revelation of Norman's mother near the end of the movie. Otherwise you get a mystery - with the end surprise being fairly clearly telegraphed to anyone who was paying attention. The suspense starts with Marion (Leigh) stealing a large sum of money from the real estate agency where she works and running off, eventually coming to the Bates Motel to spend the night. Since the murder in the shower is the classic scene of the movie, you don't expect it to come as early as it does, and you don't expect that so much of the movie is going to revolve around Lila (Miles) and Sam (Gavin) as they search for Marion. Somehow, I expected to see more of Janet Leigh. Still, there is good suspense even if the surprise about Norman's mother is pretty clear from even a mile away.
What knocked this down a bit for me, though, wasn't the obvious solution to the mystery. It was the seeming need to offer a very in depth psychological explanation near the end of what Norman was all about. Maybe there was a sense that movie-goers in 1960 would need such an explanation. I found what was virtually a closing soliloquy (and a very long one) by Simon Oakland playing a psychiatrist who's called in to examine Norman to be tedious in the extreme, and largely unnecessary; filled with psycho-babble. Norman could have been explained - if an explanation was felt necessary - much more succinctly.
One can't diss this movie. There's really very little wrong with it, except that its reputation makes it very hard for it to live up to when you watch it. Undoubtedly, when watched with late 20th-21st century eyes (well conditioned to the point of being almost oblivious to slasher-type violence) it comes across as a bit dull, frankly. Equally undoubtedly, it didn't come across that way to audiences in 1960. Still, I found it to be a little bit of a letdown compared to what I was expecting of it. (6/10)
First, I would call this more of a suspense movie with a touch of slasher movie thrown in than a horror movie, although that's admittedly through a modern lens. There are really only a couple of scenes that were "horrific" - one being the famous shower scene and one being the revelation of Norman's mother near the end of the movie. Otherwise you get a mystery - with the end surprise being fairly clearly telegraphed to anyone who was paying attention. The suspense starts with Marion (Leigh) stealing a large sum of money from the real estate agency where she works and running off, eventually coming to the Bates Motel to spend the night. Since the murder in the shower is the classic scene of the movie, you don't expect it to come as early as it does, and you don't expect that so much of the movie is going to revolve around Lila (Miles) and Sam (Gavin) as they search for Marion. Somehow, I expected to see more of Janet Leigh. Still, there is good suspense even if the surprise about Norman's mother is pretty clear from even a mile away.
What knocked this down a bit for me, though, wasn't the obvious solution to the mystery. It was the seeming need to offer a very in depth psychological explanation near the end of what Norman was all about. Maybe there was a sense that movie-goers in 1960 would need such an explanation. I found what was virtually a closing soliloquy (and a very long one) by Simon Oakland playing a psychiatrist who's called in to examine Norman to be tedious in the extreme, and largely unnecessary; filled with psycho-babble. Norman could have been explained - if an explanation was felt necessary - much more succinctly.
One can't diss this movie. There's really very little wrong with it, except that its reputation makes it very hard for it to live up to when you watch it. Undoubtedly, when watched with late 20th-21st century eyes (well conditioned to the point of being almost oblivious to slasher-type violence) it comes across as a bit dull, frankly. Equally undoubtedly, it didn't come across that way to audiences in 1960. Still, I found it to be a little bit of a letdown compared to what I was expecting of it. (6/10)