Look, there's really no deep thought at work here. I'm just wondering how much Internet Outrage there would be...because I get the feeling that horror fans would be incensed. I'm sure I would have chimed in with a WHAT PSYCHO DOESN'T NEED A SEQUEL, or something equally erudite and meaningful.
Because really, Psycho II doesn't need to exist, and it certainly shouldn't be good. And yet, it manages to do both of those things. This is some Ripley's Believe It or Not shit!
Norman Bates (Perkins) is released from an institution 22 years after the events of Psycho. He heads home (bad idea #1) and tries to make a go at a normal life- working in a diner, not killing people, etc. He becomes friends with Mary (Meg Tilly), a waitress at the diner, and invites her into Stately Bates Manor (bad idea #2) when a bad breakup leaves her homeless. Before you can say "bad idea #3", Norman is running Bates Motel again and receiving phone calls and notes from dear old mom. And someone who looks just like dear old mom is spotted throughout the house- is she not really dead? Is Norman up to his old shenanigans?
You'll honestly be wondering what's what in Psycho II right up until...mmm, about 5 seconds before the credits roll, and I don't mean in a confused sort of way. Everything here makes sense- it's just, you see, there is mystery afoot.
Psycho II is the last thing you'd expect: it's super enjoyable. Watching poor Norman struggle to keep it together, waiting for him to pick up where he left off 22 years earlier...it's a delight, oscillating between fear of Norman and fear for Norman.
The violence, when it comes, is fast, brutal, and shocking. Psycho II opens by presenting Hitchcock's shower scene in full (wait, not his shower scene...that would be...eh, you know what I mean), and man, watching it last night...I mean, it's perhaps the most famous scene in horror film history. Everyone has seen it a billion times. Everyone has aped it, miming the stabbing motions and butchering Herrmann's famous score. It's sort of taken for granted how amazing that scene is, but last night it sort of butchered my face and I re-realized just how horrifying it is. I know, duh. But it was some rare touched for the very first time kind of nonsense and it was great. I am just saying.
So listen up, folks- including you, self- the next time there's some announcement and you take to your keyboard or teletype and you start with the WHAT A SEQUEL THAT IS A TERRIBLE IDEA! AN OUTRAGE- THIS IS ONE!, just keep telling yourself: but Psycho II was good...but Psycho II was good...but Psycho II was good...
And I didn't even get into the Meg Tilly-ness of it all!
In my secret garden, there are no sequels to Psycho. You see, IT NEVER HAPPENED!
ReplyDeleteOh god...whose hand was I holding??
ReplyDeletePII certainly does have enough about it to pull you in to watching the whole thing unlike the further sequels
ReplyDeletefor all that it was so innovative, not so sure the shower scene retains much if any of its visceral qualities - every time i screen it now to students they laugh!
if you're moderating comments, why have the increasingly foul word verification still on btw?
ReplyDeletevery enjoyable blog, above moan notwithstanding
"if you're moderating comments, why have the increasingly foul word verification still on btw?"
ReplyDeleteBecause I get lots of trolls and spambots alike. The verification takes care of at least 90% of the spam, but 0% of the trolls. I try to minimize my pain as much as possible. :)
I'd rather a sequel than a remake!
ReplyDeleteYou got that right!
ReplyDeleteWow, I had no idea. I never bothered with Psycho II cause I just assumed, ah sequel bad, me no like. I'm definitely gonna check it out now.
ReplyDeleteI love this film. It shouldn't exist, but I'm glad it does. It'll never be as good as the original. But as its own film, it's definitely worthy. Great review! :)
ReplyDeleteIm usually hesitant about sequels, but who isn't. If Anthony Perkins revises his role in it, it must be good. I am definitely going to watch it. Thanks
ReplyDeleteYeah remember watching this as a young 'un in the cinema and being kinda freaked out. Better than you expect and well worth giving a chance.
ReplyDeleteIt's a very respectful sequel, perhaps a little boring because of that though. I much prefer the full-on 80s slasher madness of Psycho III.
ReplyDeleteNot only is Psycho II good, but Psycho III isn't half-bad, either. Neither sequel can live up to the original's classic status, but they actual try to, which is more than many sequels do.
ReplyDeleteI adore Psycho II! I think it's almost as good as the original. Psycho III is similarly excellent, though a bit more sleazy.
ReplyDeleteRichard Franklin was so under-rated. I recommend Road Games (Rear Window in a truck), Patrick (Carrie in a coma), and Link (Monkey Shines in a cliff house).
ReplyDeleteWhenever I hear "sequel" I hope for "Aliens".
ReplyDeleteBetter yet: "Bride of Frankenstein" (best sequel...ever).
Which got me thinking...What if Hitchcock himself had made PSYCHO 2 ?
He didn't make sequels, but he did remake his own films, albeit rarely.
Random thought: what if Hitchcock had directed HIGH NOON ?