![psycho 1998 psycho 1998](http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/42600000/Psycho-1998-horror-movie-remakes-42655977-1000-672.jpg)
That said, both Mortensen and Heche offer new takes on their characters.
![psycho 1998 psycho 1998](https://screengoblin.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/psychovspsycho1.jpg)
Obviously a scene of two unmarried lovers talking candidly about sex isn’t risque like it was in 1960, so there’s a random shot of Viggo’s naked butt. We zoom-in on Marion Crane (Anne Heche) and Sam Loomis (Viggo Mortensen) as they’re finishing up an afternoon tryst before Marion has to get back to work. Van Sant did have the technology to do the shot, and I’ll be honest, it looks great. However, he couldn’t get the shot to work, so it was done with a few cuts instead. Hitchcock wanted the opening shot to be a long take that spanned the Phoenix skyline, smoothly zooming on Sam Loomis and Marion Crane in their hotel room. However, right off the bat, the remake gets one thing right the original didn’t. There’s no point in recapping the plot, because it’s exactly the same. Sure, it’s in color, and sure a few random changes are made, but why would you try to emulate Hitchcock’s exact shots? The big problem for me, besides one major performance flaw, is that the visuals are the same. In fact, a lot of them do put different spins on their characters, and we’ll get to them. In fact, I could see how taking on dialogue so iconic and putting a new spin on it could be incredibly enticing for an actor. Certain lines can have a different inflection, or even a whole different meaning if they’re written ambiguously enough. Think about how wildly different two adaptations of Hamlet can be, despite the fact that they’re using essentially the exact same script. I know at first it seems strange, but if you think of it as a different performance of a play, it might make a bit more sense.
![psycho 1998 psycho 1998](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/cinemorgue/images/7/7d/William_H._Macy.jpg)
Only a few lines are updated for the present day, and the use of the 38-year-old script almost word-for-word is what usually catches the most flak, causing viewers to write it off as pointless.įor me, change of script isn’t the issue. It is probably the most similar remake of any film ever shot, and if it isn’t, please let me know what is. It’s often misidentified as a shot-for-shot remake which isn’t true (There’s at least one small scene not even recreated), but it’s incredibly similar. So what did he do? Follow closer to the book-version of Norman Bates who is more obviously a middle-aged, overweight creep? Try to see what a Norman Bates character would look like updated for the ’90s? Take a wildly different direction with the story? There had already been a stream of progressively worse sequels in the ’80s and ’90s, and now director Gus van Sant decided it was time for a remake. Psycho is only of the single-most important events in the entire history of film, so of course someone decided to remake it.