50 Reasons Why Psycho Is The Greatest Film of All Time

26. The Scariest Film of All Time?

Psycho is effective on the 3rd, 4th, 5th time you re-visit because it's not the jump-boo scares that keep drawing you back, but instead the underlining essence of fear that stays with you. In that sense, Psycho is the most terrifying movie of all time. 27. Patricia Hitchcock Hitchcock's use of his own daughter in a supporting role in a number of his films is a signature to itself but in Psycho he uses her to a particularly great effect. As Caroline she injects some much welcomed comic relief, particularly when she insists that Tom Cassidy is flirting with Marion because he has seen her wedding ring. The characterisation of Caroline sets one of the tonal elements of the film, which is rifled with black comedy throughout.

28. The References

Since its release in 1960, Psycho has literally been referenced by hundreds of other productions, way too many to mention. Most of the horror movies churned out by the studios in the 60s were influenced in part by Psycho, it was impossible not to be. Most of Hammer Studios psychological thrillers - like Taste of Fear and Maniac - reference Hitchcock's film explicitly, as did Brian De Palma's Dressed To Kill, which included it's own effective shower scene. However, it was low-budget horror stalwart William Castle's I Saw What You Did that was most obvious in it's referencing. Here, John Ireland brutally murders his wife in...you guessed it, the shower.!

29. The Symbolic Underwear!

Hitchcock justified shots of Janet Leigh in her underwear to the censors by claiming their symbolic meaning. Marion is wearing white underwear in the opening scene, but changes to a black set after she has stolen the $40000. It's nice that Hitchcock put so much thought into the symbolic use of underwear...however, we really know it was just an excuse to see Janet Leigh in her bra and panties, and to show her 'not so innocent' morality.

30. Who'd Have Thunk It!?

Norman Bates really is one of the most unsuspecting villains of cinema history. Because of this it also makes him one of the most terrifying €“ as exemplified by the fact that he was voted 2nd in the AFI's 100 Years, 100 Heroes & Villains poll. If Norman had also eaten his victims, he certainly would have beaten Anthony Hopkins' Dr. Hannibal Lecter to the top spot...
Contributor

Stuart Cummins hasn't written a bio just yet, but if they had... it would appear here.