Psycho

Somehow I'm getting lost here in the flood of "immortal", "classic", and "timeless". I mean, Psycho has undeniable value considering when it was made, but for all intents and purposes it's now just an outdated entertainment artifact. The script scrapes its dialogue from the bottom, the acting and general direction of the actors is severely laughable (apart from Anthony Perkins, who is quite out of step with the production of the time in both his performance and appearance), the early identification of the killer takes the edge off the scare, and the editing is downright prehistoric. The interesting reveal and cinematography were enjoyable, plus I believe that to experience Psycho in its time would be pretty psycho, but nowadays the film operates on significantly different algorithms. (16/04/2012)

Hitchcock was a peculiar and unique personality, the likes of which will probably never be born again. His Psycho is an example of perfect symbiosis between direction, cinematography and music, which leaves such a strong and deep impression that the viewer is forced to replay the story over and over again long after its end. And what comes to mind is perhaps not even necessary to repeat. Firstly, the chilling and disturbing atmosphere that stretches across the frame like a morning mist over a calm pond. Secondly, Bernard Herrmann's legendary score, which perhaps couldn't have been better and is the main reason why the famous bathroom scene is still considered a symbol of flawless horror. And finally, the truly insane Anthony Perkins and the aforementioned cinematography, thanks to which even the sight of a lonely dark house causes unpleasant chills. Yet, I hesitate to give a full rating. The ravages of time have taken their toll and Hitchcock's signature, however admirable and refined, will never represent my ideal, not only in film, but in horror as well. (05/10/2012)

I'll preface this with the fact that it's a better 3 stars. Where this movie wins is the music. I watched it in the cinema, with my classmates around me, and quite a few of them flinched in horror at the murder of the private eye. But that's mostly because of the music. Unfortunately, it didn’t fire me up, which is definitely a shame. And the other problem was that it was clear to me almost from the beginning what the ending was going to be. But I think this film belongs in the "must-see" column, so I don't regret going to see it at all as part of Project 100. But the last scene (before the credits jump in), that was really awesome. (18/12/2009)

It’s misguided to rate Psycho as a representative of any genre or as a film that scared the viewer on the scale of a few stars. Psycho deserves to be judged as a demonstration of the possibilities of the art of filmmaking and as a showcase of Alfred Hitchcock’s brilliant creativity. And by taking this path, it’s possible to come to only one conclusion – Psycho is not a film; it is a super-film. First there’s that, and then there are films that can rated with some stars according to how well made they are. ___ Let’s imagine that a painter’s brush has X possibilities of movement, angle of approach to the canvas and intensity of contact with the canvas. Now let’s apply that principle of possibilities to film directing and working with film techniques and with the viewer. Hitchcock harnessed these X possibilities that other filmmakers had been working with, juggled them and created a new palette of XYZ possibilities. Filmmaking is a science. When will there ever be a greater filmmaking innovator that Hitchcock was? (07/04/2003)

Alfred Hitchcock is a master at creating a dark atmosphere, the constant rain, black and white composition, the old house, and a few shots of a heavily clouded sky literally predicts evil, accompanied by brilliant music. Overall, this film was revolutionary for its time and something unseen. Today? The power and shock have somewhat diminished, times are changing after all, but even after all these years, this film still has something special. (27/04/2005)