9 Movies That Weren't As Smart As They Pretended To Be
8. Psycho (1998) Proves The Opposite Of What It Set Out To Show
The question that always arises with remakes if what's the point in just regurgitating the same thing. Thanks to Gus Van Sants Psycho, which took Alfred Hitchcocks horror classic and redid it shot for shot, we actually know the answer; there isnt one. The film wishes to say different, with Van Sant seemingly wanting to show how simply changing the actors or setting can yield a different film. And while Psycho is a pointless verging on awful film, it is importantly not different. Sure, some of the characterisation is a little more on the nose (Julianne Moores Lila seems to have been living her life just for this moment and Norman Bates is simply a creep, with Vince Vaughn unable to channel the pity Anthony Perkins did) and theres some infuriating changes made to iconic scenes (murders now come with Mallick style cutaways and Norman does more than just watch Marion, if you know what I mean) but this is very much the same film. Theres something admirable in attempting a shot-for-shot remake, but this one is simplistic and changes too much to be relevant Psycho thinks its something cutting, exposing a key facet of filmmaking. It isnt.
