Watchable in a film school project kind of way, but its obsession with trying to do everything exactly like Hitchcock's version leaves it cold and emotionless. Who'd have ever thought seeing Marion Crane slashed to death in a shower would inspire nothing more than a simple shrug? As a stand alone movie, it doesn't work very well.

If nothing else, Gus Van Sant's Psycho is an interesting exercise - a shot-for-shot remake of Hitchcock's classic, using the same script, music, and fair representations of the set, props etc., only in colour this time. And, like many experiments, it doesn't meet with the success its makers may have hoped for.

I can't go along with those who have marked it down to 1 - the strength of the source material alone justifies a more positive reaction than that. Plus, a score of 1 surely intimates that Hitchock's script, set, music, and shot choices were terrible, because they are all here in this version, so there can be no other conclusion. They weren't terrible then, and they're not terrible now. No, a score of 1 is no more than a knee-jerk reaction to someone having the nerve to remake Hitchcock.

Where this version fails in the sheer essence of being copied: that fact drains it of any originality, and robs the performers of any opportunity to add anything of themselves to the film. Instead you end up with sterile copies of the classic performances elicited with Hitchcock, and this is a shame because the performers are all good (and Vince Vaughan, who went on to play the same character in a series of increasingly poor comedies, edges perilously close to his own version of creepy).

I was going to say that what you end up with is like a painting-by-numbers version of an old master - you can see what made the original a classic, but there is something drastically lacking in the execution. But perhaps a better analogy is that this version is like a reanimated corpse - you can see the person it used to be, but it has no life of its own.

I would add a couple of further thoughts: making this film was not a crime, and it hasn't removed Hitchcock's original from the world. It's still out there, folks. And it's far more worth seeing than this.

Alright I was like a majority of people when it comes to remakes, they normally stink, so i was very hesitant about watching this. Alfred Hitchcock is my favorite director of all time and I thought anyone else trying to ride his coat tails is just a no talent director looking for a way to make a buck. But honestly I didn't have a problem with this. It was a shot for shot remake very few differences in script scenery and emotion. I was too fond of the adding of color the movie still hits harder in black and white then it does with color, but what movie doesn't... Exception Wizard of Oz. The acting is actually pretty good better then anticipated Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche do a great job doing their reprisal of my favorite scene in the movie when both are in the parlor. Really the only downfall was Julianne Moore acting like a punk and acting more aggressive, Vera Miles had an Oscar worthy performance in the original should have just stuck with it. But my favorite addition was Vigo Mortinson, I admit never been a huge fan of his but he was very good as Sam Loomis, and honestly he was in my opinion better then John Gavin, who even Alfred Hitchcock wasn't pleased with. All in all it's a remake so don't get your hopes up for something that will surpass the original which was as close to a perfect horror film as you can get, but do expect to be entertained after all that's why movies are made and this one certainly entertained me, It just didn't blow me away like the original.