I don't get it. Wherever I go, it seems like everyone is bashing Psycho II, yet praising Psycho III. Even Roger Ebert liked this movie... Why?
This is pretty much the first film, but with tons of gore, in color, and made in the '80s. Don't believe me? Well, we've got Norman looking through the peephole, we got a scene that imitates the famous shower scene, and even part of the plot deals with a woman who resembles Marion Crane and shares the same initials as her. Also, this film tries to do WAY too much. Okay, so we got an ex- nun on the run because she doesn't believe in God, some future rock star who applies at the Bates Motel, a snoopy reporter trying to dig up information from the previous two movies, and Norman Bates thrown in there somewhere. A lot of things didn't make sense, like why the aforementioned future rock star suddenly went crazy. Usually, with an unexpected crazy person, there are subtle hints. But not here! He just randomly goes crazy. Also, why did the Marion Crane lookalike suddenly go back to the Bates Motel? She pretty much found out from the reporter that Norman is a nutcase, so that's what drove her away. Then, in the next scene, she's talking with a priest or something, saying, "I must go back!" or something. It would have been interesting to have her reasoning for going back because Norman is proof of God existing, since he's like the Devil, but as I recall, the lady didn't have a motive to go back. She just randomly did it. And then, we have Norman going on a rampage and killing people. Oh, where have I seen that before? I did find the ending quite surprising, as (spoiler alert) Norman actually decapitates the head of his mother's corpse, suggesting that he is now set free from his demons. But then, at the last second, they cop out and have Norman pull that evil grin again. In the first one, it was terrifying. But here, it feels so tacked on, just like the peephole scene.
But there were some things I liked, like how some of the supporting characters from Psycho II return, like the cop who was sympathetic with Norman. But this guy does have one stupid line of dialogue, and that comes at the end, when Norman is finally being arrested. He's like "I was for you, Norman. I believed in you." Really? This is the second time this has happened in recent times and you still believed in him. True, Norman wasn't really behind the killings in Psycho II, but still. He should have been feeling a bit suspicious by this point. Also, I liked how Anthony Perkins took over the role as director. I mean, if there's anyone who knows Norman Bates, it's him. And finally, I liked how they immediately discard that stupid retcon from the end of Psycho II, and Norma's sister never gave birth to Norman. But those weren't enough to save this movie.
So, Psycho III. It's an overrated sequel that doesn't really do anything new with the plot. I don't recommend it.
Also, am I the only one who thinks the poster looks silly? Norman has the keys in his hand and he's making a goofy face that looks like he's saying, "Look! I got the keys! Guess what I'm gonna do now!?"
This is pretty much the first film, but with tons of gore, in color, and made in the '80s. Don't believe me? Well, we've got Norman looking through the peephole, we got a scene that imitates the famous shower scene, and even part of the plot deals with a woman who resembles Marion Crane and shares the same initials as her. Also, this film tries to do WAY too much. Okay, so we got an ex- nun on the run because she doesn't believe in God, some future rock star who applies at the Bates Motel, a snoopy reporter trying to dig up information from the previous two movies, and Norman Bates thrown in there somewhere. A lot of things didn't make sense, like why the aforementioned future rock star suddenly went crazy. Usually, with an unexpected crazy person, there are subtle hints. But not here! He just randomly goes crazy. Also, why did the Marion Crane lookalike suddenly go back to the Bates Motel? She pretty much found out from the reporter that Norman is a nutcase, so that's what drove her away. Then, in the next scene, she's talking with a priest or something, saying, "I must go back!" or something. It would have been interesting to have her reasoning for going back because Norman is proof of God existing, since he's like the Devil, but as I recall, the lady didn't have a motive to go back. She just randomly did it. And then, we have Norman going on a rampage and killing people. Oh, where have I seen that before? I did find the ending quite surprising, as (spoiler alert) Norman actually decapitates the head of his mother's corpse, suggesting that he is now set free from his demons. But then, at the last second, they cop out and have Norman pull that evil grin again. In the first one, it was terrifying. But here, it feels so tacked on, just like the peephole scene.
But there were some things I liked, like how some of the supporting characters from Psycho II return, like the cop who was sympathetic with Norman. But this guy does have one stupid line of dialogue, and that comes at the end, when Norman is finally being arrested. He's like "I was for you, Norman. I believed in you." Really? This is the second time this has happened in recent times and you still believed in him. True, Norman wasn't really behind the killings in Psycho II, but still. He should have been feeling a bit suspicious by this point. Also, I liked how Anthony Perkins took over the role as director. I mean, if there's anyone who knows Norman Bates, it's him. And finally, I liked how they immediately discard that stupid retcon from the end of Psycho II, and Norma's sister never gave birth to Norman. But those weren't enough to save this movie.
So, Psycho III. It's an overrated sequel that doesn't really do anything new with the plot. I don't recommend it.
Also, am I the only one who thinks the poster looks silly? Norman has the keys in his hand and he's making a goofy face that looks like he's saying, "Look! I got the keys! Guess what I'm gonna do now!?"