I find it amazing that Joseph Stefano, who wrote the screenplay, seemed to have forgotten EVERYTHING he wrote in the original Psycho screenplay in 1960.
Yes, this movie is interesting by itself. But no self-respecting Psycho-phile such as myself would ever find it satisfying, and it makes me cringe when I hear people say it's their "favorite sequel." It's full of so many plotholes and inconsistencies that the filmmakers oughta be stabbed in the shower!!
First of all, when did Mother Bates become this voluptuous vixen?? Weren't we led to believe in the original movie (and it's 2 subsequent sequels) that Mother was a crotchety old woman? Even in Psycho III, Norman defends her "actions" by saying, "She's just an old lady -- a sick old lady." Oh? Olivia Hussey sure looks pretty young and virile to me!
At the beginning, Norman says his father died when he was six. WRONG! In the original, he said he was five. Are we to assume he is/was lying? Then he goes on to explain that his father died from bee stings. Oh, is THAT how Norman's aunt "killed him in a jealous rage" as was revealed in Psycho III? Both explanations are pretty silly anyway.
In the original, Norman tells Marion that his mother's boyfriend (later revealed as "Chet" in this movie) talked her into building the motel. But in Part IV, the motel is already up and doing great business by the time Chet shows up!!!
And where the heck did the bathroom and closet in Mother's room come from??
And if Norman was really trying to "be" his mother, why did he put on the ugly old granny wig they buried her in?? According to this movie, his fondest memory of her was her "light-years long" brown hair!
Helloooo??? Mr. Stefano, were you SLEEPING when you wrote this screenplay?? Did you not even bother to go back and look over the original before you started?? Did you not think anyone would NOTICE??
Just a dumb, dumb, dumb movie. Once again, as he has done so many times before, Anthony Perkins single-handedly saves it from being *totally* unwatchable.
Yes, this movie is interesting by itself. But no self-respecting Psycho-phile such as myself would ever find it satisfying, and it makes me cringe when I hear people say it's their "favorite sequel." It's full of so many plotholes and inconsistencies that the filmmakers oughta be stabbed in the shower!!
First of all, when did Mother Bates become this voluptuous vixen?? Weren't we led to believe in the original movie (and it's 2 subsequent sequels) that Mother was a crotchety old woman? Even in Psycho III, Norman defends her "actions" by saying, "She's just an old lady -- a sick old lady." Oh? Olivia Hussey sure looks pretty young and virile to me!
At the beginning, Norman says his father died when he was six. WRONG! In the original, he said he was five. Are we to assume he is/was lying? Then he goes on to explain that his father died from bee stings. Oh, is THAT how Norman's aunt "killed him in a jealous rage" as was revealed in Psycho III? Both explanations are pretty silly anyway.
In the original, Norman tells Marion that his mother's boyfriend (later revealed as "Chet" in this movie) talked her into building the motel. But in Part IV, the motel is already up and doing great business by the time Chet shows up!!!
And where the heck did the bathroom and closet in Mother's room come from??
And if Norman was really trying to "be" his mother, why did he put on the ugly old granny wig they buried her in?? According to this movie, his fondest memory of her was her "light-years long" brown hair!
Helloooo??? Mr. Stefano, were you SLEEPING when you wrote this screenplay?? Did you not even bother to go back and look over the original before you started?? Did you not think anyone would NOTICE??
Just a dumb, dumb, dumb movie. Once again, as he has done so many times before, Anthony Perkins single-handedly saves it from being *totally* unwatchable.