Psycho

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? (04/07/2003)

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 I mean, Psycho has undeniable value considering when it was made, but for all intents and purposes it's now just an outdated entertainment artifact.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. (04/16/2012)

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. (12/18/2009)

A cinematic delicacy that belongs to the golden treasury of world cinema. Even if Alfred Hitchcock had made nothing else, he would still deserve a monument carved in marble. The shower scene or the fall down the stairs are, for me, symbols of perfect direction, while the slowly turning chair in the basement symbolizes horror as a distinct genre. Anthony Perkins is excellent, and he never managed to surpass his performance and essentially remained trapped in the role of the deranged Norman. The ingredients in this film are balanced so well that it became a delicacy... The extraordinarily impressive music is also worth mentioning. Overall impression: 100%. (05/06/2007)

It’s such a shame that this film’s twist is so profane today, the experience would have been much greater without knowing it. What surprised me a little is that it was the bathroom scene the one that became the most famous, I think the one of the attack at the stairs is a lot better – it’s one of the best and most terrifying attacks on film I’ve ever seen. Basically, it manages to precisely capture the instant between the reveal of the attacker and the attack itself, thus saving both the moment of surprise and the moment of tension. It’s like when, in a fraction of a second, you notice that the person who has just started running towards you is holding a knife. Yeah, and before I forget, Psycho made me realise what is that thing that often bothers me in old films, that characters driving a car shot from the front turn the steering wheel too much :-) 90% (01/05/2009)