In fact, if it is not affected by Hitchcock’s original work, this film is not too bad, after all. The story is still the same, at least it's a qualified horror movie. If you don't know the plot in advance, it might feel quite scary and exciting. But as long as it is put together with the original, it is boring. Especially when I saw Norman Bates peeking through a hole in the wall to watch Mary changing clothes in the original work, it was changed to him peeking and then masturbating, almost fainted! So in less than ten minutes, I fast-forwarded it to the end, and then spent ninety minutes watching the Hitchcock version of Horror. I can't help but sigh, it turns out that this is how the classic was made. If the classics can be copied by copying, then the classics are all dissatisfied.
If the remake is just to give people who don’t like black-and-white movies a chance to see this classic, as they say, those who can accept black-and-white movies don’t have to watch this work that follows the same pattern. This is like copying a famous painting, no matter how good it is, it cannot be more valuable than the original painting. What's more, it was Hitchcock's choice to make a black and white film for the sake of story effects, not because there were no color films at that time. What's more, the reason why a classic is classic is that it doesn't need to be retaken to become more classic.
The remake of the classic is a tribute to the master. Abbas paid tribute to Ozu and filmed Five. Wenders paid tribute to Ozu and filmed "Looking for Ozu", both of which are still very good personal works. If you pay tribute to the master, you have to try to take exactly the same photos of the master's work. I am afraid that the masters will have to jump out of their graves to protest.
View more about Psycho reviews
