Psycho IV - The Beginning, but Unfortunately Not the End

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.

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 exploiting Norman relating his extensive knowledge of matricide. Cue lots of flashbacks and lots of radio booth smoking, and you get the full back story of our lovable psychopath.

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
☆☆	☆☆	☆☆☆

Psycho II - The Re-Norman-ing

Maire says:

Ok, so let’s think about some things for a moment:

• (Un)Crazy guy is released after years of psychiatric care, so let’s send him back to his old house, where he kept his dead mother. That certainly won’t have any ill repercussions. 
• And let’s have a douchebag running the motel, cos it certainly won’t bother a meticulous personality like Norman’s. 
• Love interest? Yeah, that’ll go well.
• Surprise dickbag harassing Norman? Sure, why not?
• And just for fun, let’s play count the “Mothers”

Obviously hilarity ensues and they all live happily ever after. Oh, wait...


Corey says:

Hooray, Norman’s out of the nuthouse! And, he’s a... cook... at a greasy spoon.  Hooray!

One of the fun things about Psycho II is how Norman is pushed mentally.  It's kind of like a psychological version of Sam Raimi's penchant for throwing Bruce Campbell into bookshelves in the Evil Dead series.  You almost get the idea that the director and scriptwriter we're going back and forth:

"Ok, now Norman's a line cook.  How can we fuck him up?"
"I know! We'll make one of the kitchen tickets a vaguely worded threat that will dredge up mommy memories!"
"Awesome! Surely that will help show how deep and dark Norman really is!"

 On the bright side, Anthony Perkins is still rockin’ as Norman, even though some weird twists and turns really try to make this a bad film.  There are some great nods to the original film (Norman’s penchant for sandwiches and milk, for example), and the first ⅔ of the movie do a pretty solid job of pushing Norman close to the edge yet again.  Also, there’s an awesome kill involving a knife and a mouth. Then, the ending happens.

Now mind you, then ending of the film isn’t bad.  It’s just, well, not good. And after a neat little romp, it was really a letdown.  Don’t let that stop you from seeing the film though.  Just turn it off 20 minutes before it’s over and invent your own ending.  Just make sure that your ending involves an old lady getting whacked with a shovel. I assure you, it will be better than what actually goes on.


Salty says:

Either Psycho II is a horror movie that was made for the elderly or it’s supposed to scare people that are geriaphobic (this is a word that I have just made up that means “afraid of old people”). This wouldn’t be the first: I am convinced that Let’s Scare Jessica To Death is specifically designed to make you distrust anyone over 60, especially if they have band-aids on their necks (nothing to do with vampires). However the movie was intended, Psycho II pulls off some good stuff, but it does it slowly... old woman with a walker slowly. Lots of throwbacks to the original, lots of exposition, and the series of elaborate tricks designed by Marion Crane’s aging sister to ease Norman back into insanity takes more time than it takes my grandma to describe her weekly drug regiment. Also, the cast is full of old people (seriously the average cast member age is like 55), which is right unusual for a horror picture.

A plus of the film’s cautious pace is that you get to spend a lot of time in the creepy, dusty mansion, and who doesn't want to hang out in Norman Bates’ totally cool mansion? Also, you get more time with Norman, who is always fun in an inordinate way. However, I feel that the level of abuse he takes at the hands of the evil mother of his new girlfriend, Meg Tilly, is kind of hard to watch and I really just want him to be either left alone or to snap and start slaying people, but instead he mostly tragically struggles with his sanity. So, the movie really boils down to a lot of me sitting around thinking, "That's a pretty sweet house. Oh, Norman’s really losing it, is he going to kill anyone now? … Nope … Okay … Man, that old lady sucks! I wonder if Meg Tilly is like partially from Eastern Europe or Iceland. Yeah, I could see Icelandic blood in her … This movie is depressing."

Then after a lot of build up Norman finally freaks out, Dennis Franz disappears somehow (I don’t even remember if he gets wacked or what. Oh yeah, Dennis Franz is in this movie) and there is a lackluster crescendo. But! Then something unexpected happens: a new old lady shows up and claims to be Norman’s true mother, which isn’t a great twist conceptually, but watching that old woman get cracked full force on the back of the head with a shovel brings a huge smile to my face just thinking about it. So, if nickel-scented breath sends a shiver up your spine and you would like to spend your excess spare time with dusty houses, Meg Tilly, old people being dicks and Dennis Franz, Psycho II is the film you have been waiting for.

Maire	Corey	Salty
☆	☆☆	☆☆