Pyscho IV: The Beginning? (1 Viewer)

[Haden]

Why isn't this on DVD? When I originally saw it years ago I found it to be surprisingly good for a tv movie sequel and Henry Thomas played a good role as young Norman Bates. I'd like to add it to my DVD collection but it's not out. Anybody know why?

 

[Jon B NY]

OOf. I have no idea about the DVD release of this film, but I just like to express my complete and utter hatred for the Psycho sequals that turned Hitchcock's masterpiece into 1980's (Jason-esque) Slasher flicks. Just do shot comparisons of the murder scenes in Psycho vs. any of the sequals. One is suspense, the other is...crap.

Sorry, not to bash you or anything. If you like the movies then good for you

I love slasher flicks in general, just not so much when they brutalize masterpieces.

Anyways, to respond to your question...I believe 2 and 3 just went OOP recently...but they are owned by Universal (correct?). IV is owned by Turner, and while they usually aren't hot on releasing TV movies, yesterday they just announced that a prior TV movie of theirs Pirates of Silicon Valley is being released this summer. So who knows? Keep a look out.

 

[Ryan Belfast]

I own the R2 Psycho Collection wich includes all 4 films. The beauty about it is that parts 2, 3 and 4 are all anamporphic with 5.1 DD sound. Great little set.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Man, we need that set here ASAP! The one's that are out now in R1 are really terrible!

I also would like to express my admiration for the 4th film, it is quite decent. I thought that the scenes in the past with Norman and his mother should have been done in b&w though, it would have made them stand apart from the presant scenes and also payed tribute to master Hitchcock.

 

[Britton]

Wait, I thought Psycho II revealed that the woman Norman thought was his mother was really his aunt or something, and the old lady he hit on the head with a shovel at the end was his real mother. Or am I just crazy and making that up in my mind? So which mother does Psycho IV deal with?

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

I think you're all wrong about PSYCHO 2. I think most of the way it's quite good; very intelligently done and played, which cannot remotely be said of any Jason-esque slasher flicks. Only towards the end does it rely on a bit of the slasher motif, but let's not forget that PSYCHO is considered by many to be the granddaddy of the slasher film.

Thumbs up from this reviewer for PSYCHO 2.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Britton,
I believe that Psycho IV ignors that particular storyline and deals with Norman's birth mother, the one that screwed him up and made him into the crazed mamma's boy we all know. In short, the one Lila found in the cellar sitting in the rocking chair at the end of the original.

Olivia Hussey did a great job as Mrs. Bates, she nailed the role and the voice. Also, I thought that the sequels were all very well done. It was Anthony Perkins who single handedly held them together at times, with his continued dedication to the role. When he died I had a Psycho marathon in his honor.

There is one line of dialogue in Psycho II that always sends chills down my spine and makes me really feel for Norman...

Mid-way through after several harrasing phone calls from someone claiming to be his mother, he sits down, looks up at Meg Tilly and says very calmly "It's starting again."

 

[Josh Simpson]

Yes, I'd like to have part IV as well as the other sequels... it just so happens I'm taking a choir tour to Australia in a couple of days, so I'm gonna keep my eyes open for it, as well as a widescreen Ace Ventura.

 

[JeremySt]

At the finale of Psycho II, a woman reveals herself, claiming to be Norman's real mother. She says that the woman that Norman thought was his mother was actually Norman's aunt; her sister. She also adds that all the murders that occurred were committed by her. When Norman hears this, he kills her, and begins his psychotic ways all over again.

In Psycho III, it is revealed that that this woman was lying, and was actually Norman's aunt.

 

[Will K]

That 4-disc set that Ryan mentioned most definitely piques my interest. Anything's better than the lame R1 versions.

Hitchcock's original is my favorite movie of all time, but I must defend Psycho II. I think the movie holds up well after 23(gasp!) years. I've always found it a very entertaining film with a fine, sympathetic performance by Tony Perkins. I am so ready to kick that ratty GoodTimes DVD, I can't stand it.

Psycho III is, well, is a very odd film. Entertaining in its own right, it's thematically and visually darker and focuses on black comedy. That being said, it's not terribly satisying as whole but still has merits. I think it's also the saddest entry.

Psycho IV is way too made-for-TV for my taste. Visually bland and often very awkward, it also seemingly ignores 2 & 3. Maybe I'm wrong, but the idea of the doctor marrying her patient, Norman specifially, was absurd. I also hate the cheesy finale. I would only purchase as a completist and to honor Tony as he was obviously making the best out of the material.

 

[Jon B NY]

Jeffrey - Just watch the shower scene. Now contrast it to any murder sequence from Psycho II or III (especially the third one). Afterwards, check out Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhatten. Which one does Psycho II, III, and IV look like?

To further my argument, the film was shot in color and then still tried to look like Hitchcock. Hitchcock used the chiaro scuro shadowing technique quite masterfully during this film (this is why he choose to make Psycho in black and white, rather than color. It was not because of the budget or anything like that). The DP tried to recreate this, but failed. Miserably.

The DP for number 2 tried recreating the look and feel of Hitchcock's beautiful awkward shots (by number III it looks like they gave up). These only came out looking rather silly. A sequence that remains in my head was an occurence during the end when something about Norman's character is revealed...I forget what. But the camera does this, like, steady but sudden rise up above Norman, almost looking down on him, and it all just looks so bad.

The DP's for the sequals must have been on some beautiful drugs if they actually thought they did a good job.

Secondly, how about the music in Psycho II? That lust piano sequence in the beginning intermixed with a synth patch? It was just so cheesy and 80's. It really gave the film a "date of expiration" if you ask me. Unlike Psycho, where you can argue that this film transcends time (except for one moment where a monetary value is spoken which meant much more for the 60's than it does today).

Top all this off with the use of excessive gore as a means to shock the audience. Now, I am never, ever objective towards gore (go see High Tension this summer!), but this is the one case where it really bothers me. Hitchcock purposely tried to avoid a lot of gore, this is why the shower scene is sheer brilliance. We think it's more gory than it actually is. Hitchcock's shots and quick cuts make us think that we saw nudity, penetration of the knife, gore and open wounds. Watch this sequence frame by frame (I had to storyboard it for a course. That took a while!) and you'll see just how masterful it all was.

Finally...we were up to four. FOUR. How many films series have gone up to four that aren't slasher series? Not too many. Plus, I think the only reason it ended at four was because Anthony Perkins died. They would've found ways to make Norman come back for more.

Psycho I is not just horror. It's a grade A thriller/chiller and one of the best looking films to date. The sequal is just an insult to Hitchcock. The sequal was also proposed many years before Hitchcock died, and although Universal was willing to green light it, Hitchcock somehow was able to prevent it from being made. He didn't want to see this happen. They had to wait until he died (1980), to make this sequal (1983).

I swear I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything. I just cannot stand those films.

Although I must agree, yes, Perkins did do his absolute best with the source material. He made something ridiculously bad into something that was ridiculously bad, but at some points well acted.

However, I will admit that Psycho IV is at least respectful towards the first film, because it discredits and ignores all the ridiculous elements II and III brought into the Psycho series' digesis.

If I offended any of you in the process, I honestly did not mean to. I only wanted to offend those movies.

My source for all this information is my film professor, so she could be wrong about some parts of this rant (like the whole waiting for Hitch to die thing). So if I am wrong, please don't tear me a new one, just tear my film professor a new one.

 

[Robert Floto]

James Bond, Star Wars, Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series, Star Trek, Dirty Harry, Alien, Planet of the Apes, blah, blah, blah...

I would like to point out that the screenplay for the fourth installment was written by the same guy who wrote the screenplay for the original, and that part three, though the weakest of the sequels, was directed by Anthony Perkins himself.

And, of course, all of this type of discussion belongs in the film forum. Otherwise it's all just thread-crapping in the Psycho IV DVD thread.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I wouldn't necessarily call the discussions here "thread crapping", but rather a diversion or branching of the original topic, a slight detour if you will.

Now, coming in and saying something like "Screw the Psycho IV dvd, it sucks!" would be thread crapping.

But I do agree that this would be better served in the Movies forum.

 

[Steve Phillips]

I'd like to see PSYCHO IV on DVD. It's a whole lot better than the NBC-TV movie BATES MOTEL, or the sequel novels Robert Bloch wrote.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Oh yeah, I remember that TV movie! Wasn't Bud Cort in that as Norman's cousin or something lame like that? I can't recall what the premise, or lack of premise, was though.

 

[DaveyM]

I won't argue that the original PSYCHO is a better quality film than the 3 sequels, but the sequels are entertaining in their own way.
Psycho IV deserves a Dvd release and i also believe that the other 3 movies should be re-released because the current editions could be much better.
I would love to see Universal release all 4 films in one collection. If that ever happens i'll buy it.

 

[Will K]

My worry is that Universal is waiting for an "anniversary" year to re-do the original in 16x9 and upgrade the sequels. This year would be the 45th anniversary and 45 is not really a magic marketable number like say 10, 15, 25, and 50, which would put it at 2010. I can't imagine they'd wait that long, but Yikes!

You'd think they'd put out a Franchise Collection. My God, if Firestarter gets one...



It apparently wasn't very interesting. I'm a Psycho fanatic and I tuned out real quick. All I remember about the Bates Motel show was some guy in a chicken costume. No kidding.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

Look, I ain't sayin' PSYCHO 2 is as good as the first. Of course it isn't. I'm just sayin' it's pretty good, considering it's a sequel to one of the greatest films ever made. I mean, what a rotten act to have to follow...anything would look inferior after that. I think it does a decent job of resurrecting Hitchcock's PSYCHO-world, even in color. As I stated, the graphic violence doesn't really come in 'til towards the end, and most of the way, it's pretty reverent. And, note that I'm only commenting on PSYCHO 2, not 3 or 4. But, as the old adage goes, each to his or her own...

And let me also say that I'd love it if all the PSYCHOs were released in a box set, especially if they put PSYCHO back to its proper aspect ratio.

 

[walter o]

well what is the original OAR of PSYCHO anyway?

Also from what I recall on BATES MOTEL, anthony perkins himself boycotted the TV pilot!

 

[Jon B NY]

Yeah, Perkins boycotted the Bates Motel TV show. Good decision.

Now, isn't it impossible to get I-IV in a box set in the US? I could have sworn Universal owned I-III and Turner owned IV.

Correct me if I'm wrong...cuz I'm far from 100% on this.

Not that I'd ever consider buying a box set because the final three cause me to have terrible dreams about Hitchcock, in the grave, begging evil producers to stop brtualizing his masterpieces.

But none the less, it's fun to talk ownership rights and blah blah blah.

And yes, I realize how nerdy I can get.