![psycho 1998 español compl psycho 1998 español compl](https://images.static-bluray.com/reviews/15327_5.jpg)
Think of this return to Bates Motel as more of a fascinating experiment that’s concerned with how art operates rather than creating actual thrills or shocks. Special features include production notes, a theatrical trailer, a making-of-documentary, and a commentary with Van Sant, Heche, and Vaughn. To do so, check out Universal’s DVD, which was released over a decade ago it does have an anamorphic transfer that still holds up well along with a solid 5.1 surround sound track. But it is worth seeing, not only if you’re a Psycho fan, but a fan of cinema in general. It’s confirmation that art is often just about catching lightning in a bottle, and it’s an effect that can’t be replicated. No, it will never replace the original, and I think even Van Sant would have told you that was impossible before he ever shot a single frame. I’m not about to answer that question, but the fact that it can even be asked speaks to what this redux does manage to bring to the table. If we see it through Van Sant’s lens a second time, is it any more diluted than it is when we re-watch through Hitchcock’s? What if someone dared to watch Van Sant’s before ever seeing Hitchcock’s? Would it be the latter that is suddenly redundant to that personal experience? Well, decades later, the cat was certainly out of the bag, and even those who haven’t seen Psycho are likely familiar with its mid-film murder and ultimate reveal. This is where the choice of Psycho is again key-not only is it infamous for its early stark examples of violence, but also for its plots numerous twists and turns that Hitchcock was adamant about keeping a secret.
![psycho 1998 español compl psycho 1998 español compl](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UdrzHL9BHoY/maxresdefault.jpg)
And, yes, perhaps it is redundant as a film, but even that is somewhat questionable. You can follow it to the letter, but you’ll ultimately be left with something oddly familiar, but wholly different. Ultimately, this version of Psycho seems to affirm the intangibles involved with film-making-stuff like chemistry and timing-that can’t be duplicated even when you have one of the cinema’s great blueprints. Macy, on the other hand, looks and sounds like he’s still acting in the 60s as a private detective, which just adds to the already odd tone. The rest of the film is well-acted, most notably Julianne Moore as much more aggressive and assertive Lila Crane. The same can be said for Heche’s Marion Crane, who lacks the charisma and sympathy generated by Janet Leigh’s character. His Norman speaks the same lines as Perkins, but there’s something altogether different about him-he’s still sort of charming and disarming, but he’s obviously a different character. It’s probably even harder to see Vince Vaughn in the role now that we’ve lived with him playing an overgrown frat boy for a decade (which perhaps also proves that cinematic reception is fluid-after all, no one could really say Vaughn was cast against type back when he didn’t have a “type”).
![psycho 1998 español compl psycho 1998 español compl](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ud4F8v670co/hqdefault.jpg)
It certainly lacks the powerhouse performance that Anthony Perkins delivered in the original in fact, we might find it difficult to imagine anyone else in the role of Norman Bates. However, if we look at the film’s performances in front of the camera, we can sort of see where the film falls flat. Van Sant’s work there was indeed arduous and precise, as he even replicated Hitchcock’s original 37 day shooting schedule. It's an experiment that also confirms that all of the work behind the camera is only part of the film-making equation.
![psycho 1998 español compl psycho 1998 español compl](https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/psicosis-gus-van-sant-curiosidades-home-1547553293.jpg)
But it goes without saying that we simply can’t hail Van Sant for being a pioneer like we do Hitchcock thus, this perhaps proves the importance of timing when it comes to artistic legacy because this Psycho seems destined to be a curious footnote at best. This leaves his film tame by comparison, despite the addition of color, which certainly adds a vibrant, blood-red dimension to the proceedings. Taken simply for what it is, Van Sant’s version simply cannot have the same impact because the 38 years between his film and Hitchcock’s exploded cinematic violence. I don’t think Van Sant randomly picked Psycho out of a remake hat this was a calculated choice of targets because Hitchcock’s film was such a shocking landmark for several reasons, including its graphic violence. We’re left with an odd film that also serves to reflect back on that original and perhaps reconfirm it.