Psycho II

The original "Psycho", directed by Alfred Hitchcock, is one of the seminal horror films of all-time. However, Hitch didn't believe in sequels, so it took about two decades and a new director (Richard Franklin) to revive this franchise. Surprisingly, it is an entertaining re=entry into the world of Norman Bates.

For a basic plot summary, "Psycho II" picks up with Bates (Anthony Perkins) being released from prison after his earlier murders. After being brought back to his motel business, Norman begins to struggle once again with the demons of his past.

What really gives this film credence is the return of Perkins as Bates. He does a remarkable job of playing a supposedly "reformed" Bates, both tortured by past memories yet trying to get back on the right mental track. A major role for Vera Miles is also a nice nod to the original.

I can't say much about the plot without giving things away, but suffice it to say that it is very thoughtful as horror flicks go. It's never stale, and the ending easily recalls the "shock factor" of the first effort.

Thus, "Psycho II" is a solid addition to one of the stalwart thriller/horror franchises. It is well- acted, has an engaging plot, and will at least make you curious about checking out part three.

Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) is released after over 20 years in an asylum, supposedly cured. He goes back to Bates Motel...but then he starts seeing his dead mother again, gets phone calls from her and the murders start up again. Is it Norman going crazy again or is someone trying to drive him to it?

A very good, intricately plotted sequel to Hitchcock's classic. This could have been a disaster, but it isn't. The plot has many twists and turns and moves quickly. Director Richard Franklin does an excellent directing job, setting up some very eerie shots and duplicating some of Hitchcock's shots from the original. Perkins is just OK (he should have toned down on the twitches) and Meg Tilly is her usual blank self but there is a strong supporting cast including Vera Miles and Robert Loggia. One minor problem--was it necessary to get so violent and bloody at the end (although it's restrained for a 1980s horror film)? Still, worth catching. Great final shot too.

When I went to my local video store a year and half ago, I noticed that there were no less than four "psycho" movies there. Having seen the original, I figured that they would all be cash-ins. Two weeks ago I finally hired psycho 2 in to finally prove my point to myself. I was wrong. This movie has everything a sequel to psycho could need. A great plot (probably better than the first one's), excellent direction, and great acting. Perkins is so much better here than in the original psycho that one can't help thinking it's a shame that he passed away. There are heaps of reasons to see this movie, and very few not to if you're a suspense fan. If you liked the original you'll love this, and even if you didn't you'll still love it.

A Sequel to Alfred Hitchcock's Cult-Classic 'Psycho', 'Psycho II' lives up-to the expectations & turns out to be A Terrific Sequel! Also, Anthony Perkins once again plays Norman Bates, amazingly.

'Psycho II' Synopsis: After twenty-two years of psychiatric care, Norman Bates attempts to return to a life of solitude... but the specters of his crimes -- and his mother -- continue to haunt him.

'Psycho II' has a superior start, middle & end. The Thrills are top-notch! Tom Holland's Screenplay is gripping & very well-written. Richard Franklin's Direction is eerie & unsettling. Cinematography is good. Editing is sharp. Art Design is excellent.

Performance-Wise: As mentioned before, Anthony Perkins once again plays Norman Bates, amazingly. He's impeccable in here! Vera Miles is first-rate. Meg Tilly is impressive. Robert Loggia leaves a mark. Dennis Franz is passable.

On the whole, 'Psycho II' is a High-Class Sequel, that Thrills, Scares & above all, Entertains Big Time!

Would Hitchcock approve of this? In general you can say: No. Why? Because he apparently did not like Sequels to his movies (maybe not in general either?). But when this was made, so many years after the original, Hitch was not around to object. And he could have since he had the rights to the original. Something that may not be too common, but was the case, because he did not get as much money as he wanted, but instead could have more rights to the movie, which in the end proved essential.

Now, would this make sense if Perkins did not reprise his iconic role? I would argue that it would have not. There were some initial doubts, but fortunately he came back. There is a bit of a twist and there are quite a few callbacks to the Original. Of course catching lightning in the bottle is not possible. But it is still a valid story and a good continuation.

If you are a fan of the original, I don't think you will be too dissapointed in this (as most have been with the other sequels). But one thing is for sure: Perkins seems to be born to play this role ...