mama's boy
Added 10/25/2009
Recently, I saw this movie for the very first time and enjoyed it tremendously. It is dramatic, over-the-top, suspenseful and perhaps even comical in certain parts. Anthony Perkins (may he rest in peace) plays the classic role that he made famous more than 25 years prior as Norman Bates. Mr. Perkins gives a first-rate performance as everyone's favorite kook because he is believable and there is almost a sad quality to this pathetic creature, Norman Bates. Rounding out the cast is Jeff Fahey portraying Norman's skirt-hungry motel manager and b-movie queen Diana Scarwid, playing the harried excommunicated nun who finds solace in a welcoming Norman. What I enjoyed most about this movie is that we really got to know the characters. It wasn't a bloody horror picture, instead "Psycho 3" is a finely crafted work of cinema.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
"You could stay here f.o.c. of course, free of charge."
Added 8/4/2009
Norman is back, in what has to be the best role he has played yet. This time, a new leading lady is brought into his life, a former nun, who ran into a little trouble at the convent. Showing up at the hotel before her, a handsome, hot drifter, who makes more than a little trouble for Norman, with a nosy reporter, but nothing that Mother can't handle. Definetly worth a look, classic horror mixed with some comical moments.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Perkins drops the ball on "Psycho 3"
Added 3/12/2009
Psycho? Classic. Psycho 2? In a different league than the original, but still a worthy follow up in its own right. Now prepare yourself for Psycho 3: Norman Bates tries to become some type of 80's slasher rip off. Too bad he's about as menacing as the old fossil in line at McDonald's complaining about how senior coffees used to be a dime cheaper. This installment abandons any level of wit set forth by the previous two movies, and replaces it with sleaze and a higher body count. A halfway legitimate storyline is all but absent as well.
Continuing directly where part two left off, Norman continues living his life as a free man running his less than successful motel business. A runaway nun who has lost her faith winds up at the Bates Motel and instantly captivates Norman due to her resemblence to his original, and most memorable victim. Now Norman must choose between pursuing this newfound romance or carrying out Mother's biddings as usual. Meanwhile a nosy reporter along with Norman's new hired hand are on a mission to reveal Norman as the killer he is.
Basically Psycho 3 decides to go the typical slasher route, and it works out less than splendidly. The character Norman Bates isn't even consistent with the character he was from the past movies. Since when was Norman aggressive and outspoken? Since when did he dare defy Mother? Never that I can recall. With Perkins himself directing Psycho 3, it's plain to see that the acting took a hit. The plot simply makes use of the "kill someone every ten minutes to keep things interesting" formula until it culminates into the Psycho series' first disappointing ending. Truly a shame when considering the past endings of the series.
For what it is, Psycho 3 is alright. It's just that in contrast to the first two installments, there's nothing memorable about it at all. It may be worth a watch if you love the series, or if you're a horror fan who has seen just about everything else. If not you aren't missing anything.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Watch the guitar!
Added 3/3/2009
I love this movie. The best in the series. It delivers a scare and is humoring in a few scenese as well. The plot thickens as Norman, hires a new helper, and gets a new guest in his hotel. All a little to much for him, or should I say, Mother to handle. The movie also has a nice musical score in it as well. Anthony Perkins delivers an excellent performance, as well as Jeff Fahey, and Diana Scarwid. Of course who could forget, Ms. Venible?? "I wouldn't just go and pick out a silverware pattern just yet sheriff."
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
another solid outing as 'Psycho' turns into a (good) franchise
Added 5/29/2008
Psycho III (1986) effectively turns 'Psycho' into its own franchise, but few (if any) horror franchises can claim to have every film in the series be both quality AND actually competently continuing the personification of its character(s) (in this case, Norman Bates obviously, who changes very dynamically as the sequels go on), as opposed to merely rehashing the same 'slasher' plot like the Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street series.
It should be noted that you should have seen both Psycho AND Psycho II before watching this, as the plot is a direct continuation from Psycho II (and Psycho II from Psycho, obviously). Though not as good as Psycho II (and few sequels could be), it is still a fantastic flick, scary and haunting. Highly recommended.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
mama's boy
Added 10/25/2009
Recently, I saw this movie for the very first time and enjoyed it tremendously. It is dramatic, over-the-top, suspenseful and perhaps even comical in certain parts. Anthony Perkins (may he rest in peace) plays the classic role that he made famous more than 25 years prior as Norman Bates. Mr. Perkins gives a first-rate performance as everyone's favorite kook because he is believable and there is almost a sad quality to this pathetic creature, Norman Bates. Rounding out the cast is Jeff Fahey portraying Norman's skirt-hungry motel manager and b-movie queen Diana Scarwid, playing the harried excommunicated nun who finds solace in a welcoming Norman. What I enjoyed most about this movie is that we really got to know the characters. It wasn't a bloody horror picture, instead "Psycho 3" is a finely crafted work of cinema.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
"You could stay here f.o.c. of course, free of charge."
Added 8/4/2009
Norman is back, in what has to be the best role he has played yet. This time, a new leading lady is brought into his life, a former nun, who ran into a little trouble at the convent. Showing up at the hotel before her, a handsome, hot drifter, who makes more than a little trouble for Norman, with a nosy reporter, but nothing that Mother can't handle. Definetly worth a look, classic horror mixed with some comical moments.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Perkins drops the ball on "Psycho 3"
Added 3/12/2009
Psycho? Classic. Psycho 2? In a different league than the original, but still a worthy follow up in its own right. Now prepare yourself for Psycho 3: Norman Bates tries to become some type of 80's slasher rip off. Too bad he's about as menacing as the old fossil in line at McDonald's complaining about how senior coffees used to be a dime cheaper. This installment abandons any level of wit set forth by the previous two movies, and replaces it with sleaze and a higher body count. A halfway legitimate storyline is all but absent as well.
Continuing directly where part two left off, Norman continues living his life as a free man running his less than successful motel business. A runaway nun who has lost her faith winds up at the Bates Motel and instantly captivates Norman due to her resemblence to his original, and most memorable victim. Now Norman must choose between pursuing this newfound romance or carrying out Mother's biddings as usual. Meanwhile a nosy reporter along with Norman's new hired hand are on a mission to reveal Norman as the killer he is.
Basically Psycho 3 decides to go the typical slasher route, and it works out less than splendidly. The character Norman Bates isn't even consistent with the character he was from the past movies. Since when was Norman aggressive and outspoken? Since when did he dare defy Mother? Never that I can recall. With Perkins himself directing Psycho 3, it's plain to see that the acting took a hit. The plot simply makes use of the "kill someone every ten minutes to keep things interesting" formula until it culminates into the Psycho series' first disappointing ending. Truly a shame when considering the past endings of the series.
For what it is, Psycho 3 is alright. It's just that in contrast to the first two installments, there's nothing memorable about it at all. It may be worth a watch if you love the series, or if you're a horror fan who has seen just about everything else. If not you aren't missing anything.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
