Corey says:
To begin with, Psycho IV is one hell of a film for being made for TV. Sure, every now and then, you can kind of see the places where they put the commercial break cut in, and there's not that much in the way of gore (certainly no knives through mouths), but it does an amazing job of being the best Psycho it can be for what it has to work with.
The biggest thing about IV is that it has, yes, a happy ending. While some people will argue that II is also happy (I mean, whacking "Mom" in the head with a shovel, then a feast of sandwiches and milk?), this one has an ending where, no, Norman's not crazy, and no, he hasn't just killed anyone. But boy, does he come close. To be fair, I was really, really hoping that Norman was gonna go all baby killer on us. However, I'm happy with how events turned out. Though, it was sad to see the house go.
Our evil bastard this time around is Norman's mother's shitbag of a boyfriend, Chet. Even his name makes him sound like an asshole. Seriously, does anyone know a nice dude named Chet? The name evokes images of an ex-Marine who played football in high school (quarterback, of course) and is trying to relive the glory days of his youth through heavy drinking and reminiscence. There's even some terrible "advice" moments where Chet gives Norman some frat boy fatherly philosophy ("Never be naked in front of a woman, unless your having sex". Who says that to a kid?).
Chet fills a nice role that we've seen develop since the first sequel to the venerable franchise: the scumbag male figure that no one could possibly like. We've had Dennis Franz (scumbag manager), Jeff Fahey (scumbag musician who likes to wave lamps in front of his bits), and now Chet, played by some guy I didn't immediately recognize, so I remember the name of the character and not the actor. Even the remake has a scumbag, played by Vince Vaughn (that's right, Norman in the remake is a piece of shit). Over the course of watching these films and seeing all these assholes, I started wondering, "Why do we need these dicks?"
The answer, sort of, goes back to the original Psycho. Hitchcock's masterpiece is just that: a brilliantly told tale of a young man and (we find out at the end) just how deep his madness lies. The "whodunit" part of the film satiates our desire for conflict; in trying to figure out exactly what's going on, we don't concentrate so much on whether or not we need an antagonist. Furthermore, we don't necessarily have a hero. We just have a cast of characters who all live in this gray area of the morality rainbow. There isn't a single person who identifies as just "good" (though it can be argued that that's filled by Marion's manfriend, but he isn't enough of a force to fill the role). The film is amazing because these gray area folks tell an amazing tale, and at the end (and towards the beginning) the film comes together to execute some of the best storytelling ever in a suspense film.
Then, Norman gets famous. Not in the films, mind you. The character of the dress-wearing knife-wielding maniac struck a nerve, and became an icon. Now, there is almost no way (wait till the remake) that we can picture Norman as an evil figure. Thus, we have to have a surrogate. There's gotta be someone that we, the audience, can see as "the bad guy". Sure, we know that, at the end of the day, Norman is gonna be doing some killing (or not, which makes II a romp), but there's no way we can hate the guy. He's just a misunderstood wacko. We need scuzz. We need evil, and that's what Franz, Fahey, and Chet (I'm really sorry I don't know your real name) give us. They give us someone to hate, even as Norman gives us someone to (misguidedly) love.
Also, for those keeping score, yes, there are sandwiches in the film, though I don't remember if there is milk.
Maire says:
Brace yourself - I liked Psycho IV! Yep, honest and true, I dug it. Well, except for the closet. That just went weird.To begin with, Psycho IV is one hell of a film for being made for TV. Sure, every now and then, you can kind of see the places where they put the commercial break cut in, and there's not that much in the way of gore (certainly no knives through mouths), but it does an amazing job of being the best Psycho it can be for what it has to work with.
The biggest thing about IV is that it has, yes, a happy ending. While some people will argue that II is also happy (I mean, whacking "Mom" in the head with a shovel, then a feast of sandwiches and milk?), this one has an ending where, no, Norman's not crazy, and no, he hasn't just killed anyone. But boy, does he come close. To be fair, I was really, really hoping that Norman was gonna go all baby killer on us. However, I'm happy with how events turned out. Though, it was sad to see the house go.
Our evil bastard this time around is Norman's mother's shitbag of a boyfriend, Chet. Even his name makes him sound like an asshole. Seriously, does anyone know a nice dude named Chet? The name evokes images of an ex-Marine who played football in high school (quarterback, of course) and is trying to relive the glory days of his youth through heavy drinking and reminiscence. There's even some terrible "advice" moments where Chet gives Norman some frat boy fatherly philosophy ("Never be naked in front of a woman, unless your having sex". Who says that to a kid?).
Chet fills a nice role that we've seen develop since the first sequel to the venerable franchise: the scumbag male figure that no one could possibly like. We've had Dennis Franz (scumbag manager), Jeff Fahey (scumbag musician who likes to wave lamps in front of his bits), and now Chet, played by some guy I didn't immediately recognize, so I remember the name of the character and not the actor. Even the remake has a scumbag, played by Vince Vaughn (that's right, Norman in the remake is a piece of shit). Over the course of watching these films and seeing all these assholes, I started wondering, "Why do we need these dicks?"
The answer, sort of, goes back to the original Psycho. Hitchcock's masterpiece is just that: a brilliantly told tale of a young man and (we find out at the end) just how deep his madness lies. The "whodunit" part of the film satiates our desire for conflict; in trying to figure out exactly what's going on, we don't concentrate so much on whether or not we need an antagonist. Furthermore, we don't necessarily have a hero. We just have a cast of characters who all live in this gray area of the morality rainbow. There isn't a single person who identifies as just "good" (though it can be argued that that's filled by Marion's manfriend, but he isn't enough of a force to fill the role). The film is amazing because these gray area folks tell an amazing tale, and at the end (and towards the beginning) the film comes together to execute some of the best storytelling ever in a suspense film.
Then, Norman gets famous. Not in the films, mind you. The character of the dress-wearing knife-wielding maniac struck a nerve, and became an icon. Now, there is almost no way (wait till the remake) that we can picture Norman as an evil figure. Thus, we have to have a surrogate. There's gotta be someone that we, the audience, can see as "the bad guy". Sure, we know that, at the end of the day, Norman is gonna be doing some killing (or not, which makes II a romp), but there's no way we can hate the guy. He's just a misunderstood wacko. We need scuzz. We need evil, and that's what Franz, Fahey, and Chet (I'm really sorry I don't know your real name) give us. They give us someone to hate, even as Norman gives us someone to (misguidedly) love.
Also, for those keeping score, yes, there are sandwiches in the film, though I don't remember if there is milk.
Maire says:
So here we have Norman running through his own issue 0 via call in radio. Ok, he has some serious mommy issues, and probably a few trust issues since it’s his former shrink on the radio
While this film too still carries some hints of dickbaggery, thankfully no one actually acts on it, and our anti-hero is free to be well and actually live happily ever after.
Or until he sees the shot-for-shot remake of the original Psycho.
Salty Says:
What I am about to say goes without saying. It’s weird to want to have sex with your family, regardless of which family member you want to have sex with. Psycho IV (which may be the first film to use the now cliché subtitle) has got a lot of awkward mother/son sexual tension. The plot is predictable, the movie is toned down, especially when compared to Psycho III, it has continuity errors with the rest of the series and the back-and-forth prequel/sequel storyline doesn’t really come together great, but for some reason I still really like it. The kid that plays Young Norman - a role that is positively owned by Anthony Perkins – is totally acceptable and I even like the lady that plays Mother. Plus John Landis is in there somewhere. Oh, and you get to see what happens when you poison someone with strychnine, which is absolutely horrifying…
| Maire | Corey | Salty |
|---|---|---|
| ☆☆ | ☆☆ | ☆☆☆ |
No comments:
Post a Comment