A friend swore the Psycho remake was a must-watch, I still want my 2 hours back

My buddy Dave kept saying the Gus Van Sant shot-for-shot remake was 'interesting art' and not a total waste. He convinced me to sit through it in 2023, and I honestly thought the original was playing at first, then the acting got flat and I felt sick. It cost me $14 on a rental and I spent the whole runtime checking my phone, which I never do. Dave later admitted he only liked it because he wrote a college paper on remakes and needed to defend it. Has anyone else been tricked into watching a flop remake by a friend who had some weird academic angle on it?

2 comments

2 Comments

king.andrew25d ago

Give the guy some credit, a shot-for-shot remake is bold even if it fails. Watching it next to the original does make you notice every tiny choice Van Sant made, and that alone is worth one viewing if you're into film craft.

sarah53125d ago

Comparing the two films side by side actually flips the usual remake question. Instead of asking if Van Sant improved the story, you end up staring at how much of the movie is just about the actors' bodies and the light on their faces, because the script and shots are identical. That makes you notice the original really is a product of its time, with that cheap, grainy feel, while Van Sant's is almost sterile and clean. It's less about whether it's good or bad and more like a weird science experiment on what makes a film feel alive. Take that with a grain of salt, but I walked away thinking the remake accidentally proves the original isn't just the shots, it's the mess and the energy around them. Your mileage may vary, but nobody talks about the remake as a time capsule for the late 90s, and that's the only reason I'd ever watch it again.