Okay, so I'm a big Alfred Hitchcock fan. He's my filmmaking idol and I owe so much to him. One of my favorites of his is Psycho, which I really loved. Naturally, I would check out the sequels.
Usually, a sequel to a really great movie (especially if the original director is not involved) is doomed to fail. But not always. Definitely not in this movie. I actually enjoyed Psycho II. I liked how it continued the story and turned Norman Bates into a sympathetic character this time around. He's trying to start fresh and live a normal life, but his demons still haunt him and some of the townspeople remind him of his horrid past. This story is quite fresh and original. I like how Norman is trying to change. I'm so glad Universal chose to not follow the Psycho II book, which was about Norman going to Hollywood. That would have been stupid.
Not only is the story good, but once again, Anthony Perkins nails the part of Norman Bates. He still acts so awkwardly. The music, done by Jerry Goldsmith, is also good. But nothing can top Bernard Herrmann's famous score of the original. Like the first film, it had a great twist ending that you didn't see coming, but one thing I hated about the ending is the shark-jumping moment where we find out that (spoiler alert) Norma Bates didn't give birth to Norman. It was her sister. Yeah. I'm just as appalled as you are.
Overall, this is a pretty good sequel that doesn't deserve the hate that it gets. Of course, it's not trying to top the Alfred Hitchcock classic. It's trying to do its own thing. Also, it's not a cheap retread of the previous film. That was saved for the next movie.
Usually, a sequel to a really great movie (especially if the original director is not involved) is doomed to fail. But not always. Definitely not in this movie. I actually enjoyed Psycho II. I liked how it continued the story and turned Norman Bates into a sympathetic character this time around. He's trying to start fresh and live a normal life, but his demons still haunt him and some of the townspeople remind him of his horrid past. This story is quite fresh and original. I like how Norman is trying to change. I'm so glad Universal chose to not follow the Psycho II book, which was about Norman going to Hollywood. That would have been stupid.
Not only is the story good, but once again, Anthony Perkins nails the part of Norman Bates. He still acts so awkwardly. The music, done by Jerry Goldsmith, is also good. But nothing can top Bernard Herrmann's famous score of the original. Like the first film, it had a great twist ending that you didn't see coming, but one thing I hated about the ending is the shark-jumping moment where we find out that (spoiler alert) Norma Bates didn't give birth to Norman. It was her sister. Yeah. I'm just as appalled as you are.
Overall, this is a pretty good sequel that doesn't deserve the hate that it gets. Of course, it's not trying to top the Alfred Hitchcock classic. It's trying to do its own thing. Also, it's not a cheap retread of the previous film. That was saved for the next movie.