I have the following Alfred Hitchcock films in my film collection.Strangely, I only have two of Hitch's movies in my collection. PSYCHO, which is required viewing, and ROPE, which is my favorite of his films. That's one of those movies that should be held in high esteem by anyone who loves film.
I wouldn't say pointless, but perhaps he may have found something better to occupy his time.A pointless waste of time?
Sure.An interesting cinematic experiment?
Yeah. I mean, it didn't destroy the original.A harmless cover version?
No sir!Love it?
I can't say I hate it, but I don't have much in the line of favor for it.Hate it?
Mostly in casting. And why one would spend their time just making a shot-for-shot remake when you could go back to the novel and just create something new (although, there isn't much that the original changed, but enough to go back to the source).Baffled by it?
I think it's artistic wanking. It was an unnecessary remake, as most are, but this one more so. It didn't do anything or say anything new in its interpretation of the movie, other than costume changes and being in color. It is a much less creative and entertaining movie, and can be looked at as a film curiosity, but other than that, it will never be looked at as a classic.What are your thoughts on Gus Van Sant's Psycho?