Psycho

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)

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. (04/27/2005)

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 I mean, Psycho has undeniable value considering when it was made, but for all intents and purposes it's now just an outdated entertainment artifact.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

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)

So I’ve finally really gotten to know Psycho! This is because the film is so well known that from all the previews and photos I've seen, all the TV documentaries, all the paragraphs in books and magazines, and the song titles on Herrmann's extra-fierce soundtrack, I felt like I'd actually known it for a long time. And since one of those notorious things is the point, despite all my admiration for the greatest master of suspense, I wasn't that keen on watching Psycho. Come on, stop looking at me like that, we all do stupid things. I did enjoy Psycho last night, though. In a movie theatre, in fact. I didn't notice the giggling of the rest of the audience, who had apparently seen the film for the tenth time, and I sat there like a chained man. I was very pleasantly surprised by a lot of moments I didn't know and which I quite possibly liked the most - especially the (non)sinking of the car into the peat bog and the private detective walking up the stairs (that was truly worthy of a heart attack). Needless to say, Psycho is one of those films that deserves a sixth star. (02/19/2013)