The whole thing of Norman Bates is that he looks harmless(“wouldn’t hurt a fly”) and “normal”. Vince Vaughn is too physically intimidating. He is immediately creepy when you see him, whereas Anthony Perkins seemed sweet just slightly off.
Ummm....you're partially correct. Although Ed Gein lived alone in squalor after the death of his mother, he was always someone his neighbors considered to be pretty much harmless and pitiable, to the point that some families would have him babysit their children or ask him to for odd jobs around their houses. Keep in mind this was the 1950's and Gein was one of the first times the relatively sheltered public would hear of these atrocities happening so close to home. It was only when Plainfield became overrun with international news network coverage and the print media from all across America started speaking with locals after the first news cycle hit that the locals suddenly began questioning his motives behind every interaction they'd ever have with him and often filled in the gasps with imagination and salacious details. Was he insane? No doubt. Did he rob graves? Yes. Was he a serial killer? ....No. He only killed two women. Please understand I have no intention of speaking kindly or sympathetically. But the story has now inspired several iconic horror films (Psycho, Silence of the Lambs, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), but I think were most people to take the time to sit and read about the true story, they'd find it's nowhere near as thrilling).
My sentiment exactly the way he behaves from the get go would make a normal person head for the hills. Plus it looks ridiculous when they reveal him dressed as Mrs Bates because of his bulky towering physique it looks like its done for comedic rather than dramatic effect. Whereas Anthony Perkins, whilst similar height to Vaughn, was slim built and slightly effeminate so it didn't look quite so silly when he dresses as a woman.
I haven’t seen this since watching it in the heater back in the day, but definitely remember thinking there were some misguided choices by some of the actors. Chief among them was how Vince Vaughn portrayed Norman Bates. I always felt one of the strongest aspects of Anthony Perkins’ portrayal is that he played it so awkward yet innocent. You really wanted to believe he was a guy tortured by his crazy mother. Literally the second Vince Vaughn steps on the screen we were all like “oh he looks like a psycho alright.” He looked and acted like the kind of guy you cross the street soon as you see him walking your way, because there’s something off about him. It amazed me that Gus Van Sant didn’t redirect him another direction or worse, directed him to be like that, which might be the case. The peeping Tom seen where in the original felt like, oh maybe it’s because he’s curious. Maybe it’s because he’s so lonely. Meanwhile Vincent Vaughn, literally jerking off peeping on Anne Heche in room 1. WTF?
@@juliajones2318 I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bad Julianne Moore performance. She elevates any material she’s given. Now suddenly I’m wondering, what if they had reimagined Norman Bates as a woman and had Julianne Moore play her.
According to Van Sant, it was basically just an experiment that you cannot remake a classic even if he attempted to try something new in his movie, it didn't work
First rule of a remake, don't make a remake unless you have something to add to the story. Bring the story to the current timeline is not adding something to the story unless the changes in time mean something. In this instance could have brought more paranoia about people fearing psychopaths and the fact are more well known these days as opposed when the original was made. Put ins the shower scene as a fake scare and have the death occur later and differently. Play on the audience expectations and then go the other way.
The whole POINT of this remake was to not add anything to the story.
2 года назад
A shot for shot remake of a movie that is extremely well preserved has absolutely no point in existence. A remake of a classic should be done like in "Night of The Living Dead". Amazing original movie, amazing remake, great changes without devaluating the original, both fun, and a nice homage. Oh, and Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates is easily one of the biggest miscast in history
I agree, but I kiiiiiiinda don't. I always thought a shot-for-shot remake of Jaws would be lots of fun. Modernize it, get a better looking shark in there... I'd go see it. LOL
yeah i mean the shot for shot remake of funny games is fuckin brilliant, but i admit i have not seen the original
2 года назад
@@sinnsage Well, the original Funny Games is an austrian movie, so I wouldn't call it a "remake", exactly, but more like a "local adaption" (because apparently English speaking countries can't read subtitles). Same goes for Old Boy. I may be wrong on the definition, tho
@ The American Old Boy was definitely a remake, it wasn't like "local adaptation" (which is a term I will probably now use to describe a Funny Games-style of remake. Thank you.). And please don't take that as me trying to correct you. The American-version of Old Boy probably would've been better if it were a local adaption.
Here we go. The original "Psycho" is my favorite film and I saw this when it came out only because I was curious. For a remake of a classic that relied on shock effect, the problem with a faithful remake is that the original film is so well known, the audience is just waiting for shit to happen. To make it shocking again is pretty simple and I will illustrate it in a future fan video. Thank you for helping me understand these filmmaker's misdirected logic.
I think it was a lesson well learned, there's just some films that shouldn't be remade. Hitchcock was a revolutionary filmmaker, don't touch his stuff. They aren't all perfect, but they're perfect for what they are. Funny, the horror remake they didn't mention in this, that was most like Hitchcock, was Halloween. My personal opinion, the original was a creative masterpiece and what they hell were they thinking letting Rob Zombie touch that?
I saw this…in theaters. I knew it would be bad going in but I was curious how bad or if it would surprise me. It is the only time in any movie I’ve seen where the sparse audience in the movie theater was just openly discussing how dreadful it was during the film. People were openly mocking Vaughn and nobody minded. It was kinda a bizarre experience tbh
That is fascinating. I wish I could have been there to see that. I've had a few bizarre theater experiences myself, but not one particularly like that.
The big question I had I was: Why? And then I learned the answer after seeing Gerry and Elephant, because Gus Van Sant (or however he's spelling his name now) apparently thinks that any film he directs must be worth seeing no matter what the movie actually is.
I appreciate the shot for shot style of Psycho. That being said, it's hard to see Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates. It is cool that three Jurassic Park actors are in the movie
I don't appreciate it as it is totally pointless, that movie was already made and didn't need either improving or copying. Waste of time. Have a look at Cape Fear and see how you can make an interesting remake.
Vince Vaughn always has this douchey every man kinda vibes. While Norman bates has this naive innocence that you suddenly realize is insane. Something that Vince just can’t do
I remember renting this when it first came out on video and watched it with the family and... it just fell flat. I've had absolutely no desire to rewatch it since then.
It was dead before it started. Psycho is my favorite film ever and when I head of the remake I went to see it, curious of what it could bring. It brought NOTHING. I hated Gus Van Sant and avoided his movies like the plague after that. 1960's Psycho still rules!!!
You are giving the movie entirely too much credit if you say that it brought nothing. It brought quite a few new things... and all of them made it worse!
Crispin Glover would have made an excellent Norman Bates. I think it's kinda funny that if a band covers someone else's music it's considered tribute, but if a filmmaker decides to do a remake it's more like they're saying , "Nice try, but here's how it should have been done."
Ha Ha ... would've been great. I still wish they'd cast that guy as The Joker. I keep thinking about that movie Willard, or Wild at Heart where he plays "Jingle Dale" .... "I'm Making My Lunch!!!"
The idea itself was stupid. The casting was terrible. Anne Heche was more known for her relationship with Ellen than anything she had done on-screen. Vince Vaughn was wrong. Anthony Perkins gave a great performance as Norman Bates - itchy, twitchy, awkward, but also very defensive of his mother. And when he pushed the car with the dead body into the swamp, and it became stuck, not sinking immediately, he was perfect. He had been chewing gum, then stopped, looked around guiltily, and then resumed chewing when the car finally sank. Great movie. I saw it in the theater on a first run when I was ten.
Vince Vaughn was perhaps the most miscast actor in history for Norman Bates. Anthony Perkins was a slight, almost waiflike young man. It was pretty crucial that he didn't seem capable of being the killer to the film's first audiences. Vince Vaughn is anything but slight and for the moments when Norman's mask slipped a bit, Perkins seemed socially awkward. Perhaps even autistic. When Vaughn recited the exact same dialogue, he was instantly menacing. The production had somehow cast some of the most talented young actors of the late 1990's, yet there didn't seem to be any direction as to how faithful the performances were supposed to be to the original portrayals. This is most obvious in the sisters: Anne Heche (who admitted to never having seen the original) played Marion Crane as the closest carbon copy she could get to Janet Leigh. But Julianne Moore's Vera was an entirely new take on the role, the younger sister managing a record store, complete with ever-present headphones and a CD player. I personally love the remake....because I understand what Gus Van Sant was going for. If you watch it from the angle of it being a cinematic experiment, it's endlessly fascinating. And where film schools around the world had studied the famous shower scene for years, many of them today study the failures in remaking a classic film nearly shot-for-shot with virtually the same script. The one aspect I will say I found most baffling is Van Sant's decision to design a new facade for the iconic Bates Mansion. Built just in front of the original, it has no recognizable influences or construction style to it. It didn't have even a fraction of the original's creepiness to it.
On a serious note, I would like to express my heartfelt sympathy toward Anne Heche and her family. I understand that the circumstances leading up to her vehicular accident were her own fault, but I am not judging. It is tragic nonetheless. My heart really pours out to her family. I could not imagine being faced with such a situation. She was a fine actor, and wasn't quite a few good films throughout the years. It really is a great loss in the entertainment community. Not trying to bum anybody out or anything, I just wanted to express my appreciation and give my condolences. Rest in peace Anne Heche....
I find it to be an absolutely fascinating failure. As a HUGE Psycho fan (and film school graduate), I loved the idea as a grand experiment that dares to ask: Can lightning strike twice if a different director follows the blueprint of the original director? The answer, of course, is no. But why? Why doesn’t it work? Besides the obvious atmospheric effect of adding bright pop colors to Psycho’s grim gray universe, the biggest problem is the casting. Anne Heche is just too flippant and perky, completely lacking Janet Leigh’s maturity, seriousness, and quiet desperation. Vince Vaughan is just too damn big and hulking and sinister, capturing nothing of Anthony Perkin’s brilliant blend of awkward charm and boyishness. No woman would ever share sandwiches in the back office with big creepy Vaughan. But Perkins? Sure, why not. He’s a harmless little geek! He wouldn’t hurt a fly! Even so, I love comparing it to the original scene by scene. If I were a film school professor, I’d ask my students to compare the scenes and figure out why the new ones don’t work. Overall, I think it’s an incredibly interesting experiment and a valuable study tool for filmmakers. I love it.
I remember seeing this at the theaters in 1998 at 14 by-myself. And I recall reading about Psycho in the Entertainment Weekly magazine, stating it was a ‘dollar for dollar’ profit in I believe the ‘Winners and Losers’ article. Ha, I may even still have the same magazine somewhere! That was my version of joblo movie reviews back in the late 90’s. Funny to see how ew was wrong
I used to read that magazine back then and I remember an article about the Psycho remake! Unless I'm really remembering it wrong, Gus Van Sant was actually talking about how he was figuring out the shots from the original and had to "cheat" to them right. So I call shenanignas on him saying it wasn't meant to be a shot-for-shot remake!
I watched it on cable at some point, Vince Vaughn was a known celebrity at the time, still doing mostly comedies, and I remember being utterly confused why he seemed so creepy in the movie. Assuming it was just me. Lol I thought it was a romance and he just sucked as an actor lol. Eventually realized it was an adaptation of Psycho, and honestly thought it was decent. Weird watching him play that role at the time though.
I actually saw the remake before the original. Back in 1998, I was able to see Psycho II and III. So, basically, I learned who Norman Bates was before I ever saw the original film. Shortly after watching the two sequels, my Mom and I heard about the remake coming out. Despite my Mom being skeptical, she decided to give the film a chance and took me to see it on opening day. I still remember when we went into the theater and that we were the only two in there throughout the film's entire runtime. That should have been a sign that the film was going to flop. Afterwards, we sort of moved on and forgot about the film. It wouldn't be until 2007, when I was finally able to see the original Psycho. It now stands as being one of my favorite Hitchcock films (The Birds being my favorite), and one of my favorite films, in general. Now, I'm able to understand why people disliked the remake and felt it was a disservice to the original. Still, I do find the remake interesting as an experiment, trying to see if a shot-for-shot remake can succeed. It didn't, ultimately, but it was still interesting. Another way to experiment with this remake (and the best way to watch it) would be to edit the two films together and compare how the actors from both play the characters. I've actually seen some people do that and it's a creative way to watch the films.
Just watched this for the first time ever. It just evoked so much soullessness from the opening shot. Real bad adaptation all around. I think this really shows the value of having a great director running the show because it's literally the same movie, but one is a timeless joy to watch and the other feels mailed in. Hitchcock prioritized getting the shots just right and the best possible takes and as a result, his movie hits you much harder emotionally. Hats off to Anthony Perkins too.
I'm sorry, I saw this in 1998, I wouldn't see the original till later, but the horror audience in 1998 is NOT the horror audience of 1960. Simple as that.
You say this isn't a shot-for-shot, but... this was as close to shot-for-shot as I've ever seen in a remake. If there were any differences in the camera work or script, you could probably count them on one hand. I watched the original and the remake back-to-back a few years ago, and - unless I'm forgetting a lot - I remember it being almost exact, but just horribly miscast.
I was confused as to why a cow was standing in the middle of the road. For me, Vaughn was too big and muscular to be Normal Bates. This was most apparent at the end, when Norman has the knife wrestled away from him. I asked my mother what made Psycho scary back in her day. Back in this time, homophobia was VERY off the rails. So one of the things that made the movie "creepy" to the audience was that the character of Norman came off as effeminate and possibly gay. Those in a screening attendance would be whispering about it. Obviously, there are legitimate horror elements that stand the test of time, and audiences are more sophisticated. Most importantly of all, IMHO, is that this movie is a classic that did not need to be remade. Anyone who is considering a remake should take a movie that was weak but had potential, as was the case with the remake of 13 Ghosts.
Yeah agree, Vaughn's casting is baffling. Very tall guy and quite solid, as you pointed out. Bates being shorter and skinnier would seem more appropriate.
There’s absolutely nothing that hints that Norman Bates is gay. Childlike? Yes. Incestuous? Maybe. Gay? No. I can assure you that no one in 1960 was creating gay subplots and “whispering” about them lol
@@07foxmulder I'll be sure to let people from that time know that they weren't thinking what they say they were thinking. Your guarantees is meaningless. Best of luck.
@@07foxmulder wow you’re completely wrong! Hitchcock frequently used homosexuality to unsettle the audience (Rope, Strangers on a Train, Rebecca) and Norman is often very effeminate. Plus the actor who played him was gay or bi. You are wrong.
The OG is one of my favs of all time. The remake feels like a cool experiment. And I absolutely love the adaptation of the story in the last season of Bates Motel. I think a 3rd theatrical remake could work if it was a full adaptation of the OG Book.
I’d argue that these videos does Gus dirty by basically saying his post-Psycho work weren’t as good or better than any of his big studio works. Gerry, Last Days and Paranoid Park were all great & more interesting than Good Hill Hunting. also he did have another mainstream hit with Milk.
In the original film Marion is wearing white underwear at the beginning because she's innocent. When she decides to be bad and steal the money she's wearing black underwear. In this movie she's wearing pink and green underwear respectively.
Vince Vaughn was definitely not the right choice for Norman Bates! And Anne Heche is a very mediocre actress...I saw it once and never again because it was bland and soulless...
Gus van Sant is so great. Good Will Hunting and Drugstore Cowboy are 2 of my all time favorite films, I also thought that Elephant is also SO great. when he has a vision he is usually able to absolutely nail it, but the Psycho remake seems terrrible.Vince Vaugn is the tall lame dude in wedding crashers, not norman fucking bates
At that time hess a b-lister (most known for dating Ellen) was the big name in the two person main cast, Vaughn was still relatively unknown. I don't think it was Vaughn's name that got him that part and I don't think they were that bad, I found it to be a good remake.
The problem with the movie was that it was a shot by shot recreation of the original. They did nothing to try to modernize or be original in their take on the story of Norman Bates.
WTF happened?! It was a *STUPID IDEA!!!!!* A remake of a movie famous for its mid-story plot twist, and its surprise ending, both of which have so become indelible parts of pop culture, they're known even to people who've never even seen the actual movie...how much more obvious does it need to be?!
Fun Fact: In the Japanese release of *"PSYCHO '98",* Julianne Moore & Vince Vaughn were dubbed by Masako Katsuki (the original Sailor Neptune from the 90s *"Sailor Moon"* anime series) and Hiroaki Hirata (Vinsmoke Sanji from *"ONE PIECE")* who previously dubbed for the two American actors in *"THE LOST WORLD: Jurassic Park"* (1997). Plus, William H. Macy was dubbed by Rokurō Naya who would later voice for him again in the Japanese release of *"JPIII"* (2001).
The actors to me were the least problem. They all seemed like they fitted the roles. Yes, even Vince could have successfully made Norman his own. They just came off stiff and uncomfortable, mostly Anne Heche, because they were trying to xerox what the original did instead of naturally bringing their own to the table here. Julianne Moore stood out as the only one who tried to break out being a mimic to Vera Miles and do her own thing. They should have used this moment to make a more faithful adaption of the book than the original did and then this could have done better.
@@TheIndependentLens I barely saw any of them put their own into it because they were trying to mimic the original actors. But Julianne was the most different from her counterpart so while also stiff and bland for the most part, she did more to show she wanted to do her own thing as she should have though her demeanor and body language at times. I wouldn't be surprised if it was her idea for Lila to give Norman the kick at the end that was not a present action in the original. Everyone would have done fine if given more originality to their parts. if Gus wanted to experiment, then he should have done a fan movie and not an official thing. I wonder if this movie was even given a test screening. I would imagine if it did, the final results would have been very different or the studio just did not care.
I was really hoping that maybe this was just a misunderstood movie after all these years but no, it is bad. It’s bad on it own, the pacing, the acting, the art school student images inserted into the murder scenes. As a remake, it’s one of the worst.
I remember when they did this and their reason behind it was that a whole generation of kids grew up not watching black & white movies so they thought if they remade it in color with hot stars of the day that people would flock to see it. Um, they were wrong.
Psycho 2 was 100x better than this travesty. I know Vince Vaughn was a serious up and comer at the time, but casting a 6'5 actor as the timid Norman Bates was just a massive misstep. The sad thing is, and I know remakes are hit and miss but under the right director we could have gotten a truly solid reimagining of Psycho down the road that wasn't a cut and paste. The Omen remake is nearly just as guilty of shameless unoriginality. Just a big mess and a waste of perfectly good talent.
I hate this movie so much....I haven't seen it in decades and just hearing about it again makes me roll my eyes and sigh heavily. It's just so boring, it just copies too many scenes shot for shot, the main actors are awful in this, particularly Vince Vaughn (whom I've never liked as an actor) and it's just...boring. The original is just so much better in style, camera work and suspense. At least other Horror remakes actually attempted some stylistic changes or changing/expanding story elements. Point blank, there is no reason for this movie to exist....considering Remakes fall into 2 major categories. Either 1. They're made to reboot a franchise and get it back into public minds like Halloween has done several times now. OR 2. Makw a different spin on a older movie with new effects The Blob, Invasion of the Body Snatchers or taking it into a completely different direction like The Thing or The Fly. This film served NONE of those endeavors
Hitchcock’s Psycho is my all time favorite film. I was hesitant about this remake but also interested in the frame for frame pitch. This is the only movie I ever walked out on. Happened right after the unnecessary scene of Norman watching Marion shower… we didn’t need that at all. Such an ick decision.
The director is not Alfred Hitchcock. That's the primary reason it failed. They bank on remakes to make money. You can only mess up what was perfect already.
I was a teenager when this came out, a fan of the original, and I saw it in theaters. Anthony Perkins played Norman perfectly as a homeschooled kid. A kid that hasn't had enough exposure to the outside world beyond his mother; he was over-eager to talk, had awkward social interactions with a woman, and an underlying darkness that he only occasionally let peek through. He came off as a clueless lost kitten. Then when the movie progressed, Norman was so much more. Vince Vaughn played Norman as a psycho parading as a boy. He was in on the ending and played it that way the whole movie. Ann Hache's outfits were too quirky to be believed and she didn't get the character. The rest of the cast was good but if you don't get the tone in your main characters, whats the point?
Always felt to me like a commentary on the nature of remakes. Change too much and it becomes a different movie. Change too little and it becomes pointless.
38 years for a remake was too long. The crowd of the original was too old to go watch it, and the current movie crowd was too young to know of the original.
Yeah, a 60 million dollar budget is an absolute joke. For comparison, Scream had a budget of like 15 million. Somebody definitely pocketed some of that 60 million
That remake of "PSYCHO" sure had Alfred Hitchcock and Anthony Perkins scream in their graves. Even I thought it was unique in ways, but obviously didn't follow the same structure as the original. However, I only liked the bits and pieces that were free to film (such as extended dialogue and scenes), but limited to shoot during the original. And out of the entire cast, I still enjoyed William H. Macy (Arbogast), Phillip Baker Hall (Sheriff Chambers), Anne Haney (Mrs. Chambers), and Robert Forster (Dr. Simon). So when it comes to horror films to watch, such as PSYCHO, or Black Christmas, or Halloween, my four words: stick to the original.
I was a senior in high school and took a first date to this move.....huge mistake. I did not get a kiss at the end of the date or a second date for that matter.
I saw this film in the movie theater and I enjoyed it, especially the last shot over the landscape, as well as the Weepy Donuts music (guitar wizardry by Bill Frisell). The reason this film didn’t perform well is because of the “high school” mentality of the critics and industry. When a popular person in high school states that something is bad, everyone follows. Not much has changed.
The original Psycho is far superior to the awful remake. The remake was a complete dumpster fire. I thought that Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates was a joke
People at the time were accustomed to horror remakes. We had already had the amazing The Thing and The Fly. We also had Savini’s Night of the Living Dead, The Blob and Bram Stoker’s Dracula. So horror fans were not against the film on principal because at the time remakes were still fairly decent and because of advancements in filmmaking brought improvements over the originals. They felt justified. Psycho didn’t have a ton that a remake could improve upon. So it felt to us like it was just a Remake for the sake of money. That’s why horror fans including myself did not go to see it.
The thing that bugged me about this remake is why they changed the house?? I don’t mind most of the weird stuff they did but replacing the house was a stupid move.
I want to know what the fuck 60 million dollars went to. Especially in 1998 dollars. Gus Van Sant must have been counting money like his scene in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.
I always disdained this re-make as nothing more than a Hollywood attempt to PUSH certain performers on the audience. Julianne Moore is not talented, and this film--like all of her others--just shows that. Anne and Vince were hopelessly miscast. Only William Macy made anything like an impression, but it was too little too late.-*
I love Psycho, the original is one of my favourite movies and Part II is an underrated masterpiece. The remake, is in my opinion one of the best horror remakes ever made. Sure Vince Vaughn’s take is closer to the books version which was the idea and that version isn’t likeable.
I saw this one first and I liked it a lot, but then I saw the original and it completely blew me away and made me understand why the hate to this one. But it lead me to the original, so I’m grateful to this movie
This remake was not scary, there was no tension Shot for shot is the worst way to remake a movie, the director might be a good director but you should not copy and paste when making a movie especially when remaking a movie made by a legendary director like Alfred Hitchcock
The casting's great (aside from Anne Heche) but Vaughn's performance as a nervous, somewhat creepy giant is the standout IMO. People forget he wasn't the comedy guy at the time. He also played a murderer well in Domestic Disturbance around the same time.
Vaughn was doing solid work at the time, but imo casting a 6'5 actor to play a timid, non threatening Norman was a terrible miscast. And Anthony Perkins just can't be topped, so for me any remake should have been a reimagining that kept the core concept but justifies it's existence by doing something different.
@Jarred Knox-Neyhart-May I agree. And Vaughn not being threatening makes the character so much better. I liked his character adaption. Sure Perkins can't be topped but that doesn't mean Vince V. did t do a good job
@Jarred Knox-Neyhart-May I have not read the book, but imo Norman is naturally timid and rather unassuming which allows women to drop their guard around him. Norman gives hints that he might not be firing on all cylinders but by then it's a bit to late. And as good as Vaughn can be as an actor, watching him try and emulate Anthony Perkins to a large degree was doomed to fail. Maybe have him be more threatening from the start or something. I guess whenever I think of what my modern Norman Bates would be I think Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler or Joaquin Phoenix in quite a few of his roles.
@@capitalcitygoofball1987 That’s my issue with it. He’s too physically intimidating. He looks like a man who could hurt you and that goes against the very idea of the character.
Many disagree, but Vaughn was awesome for the role. He was really only recognizable for 3 films to that point; Rudy, Swingers, and Jurassic Park 2. Much of the disdain I feel is a bit revisionist. Perkins was not lauded for his casting either until the film was released; prior to that he was just a romantic lead. I will say that Vaughn is slightly more hollow as Bates, but he also didn't have the sexuality struggles and personal abuse Perkins endured as a sort of point of reference to flesh out the character
Gus Van Sant should have waited a decade to remake Psycho and then cast Spider-Man #2 himself Andrew Garfield as Norman Bates he would have been the best at it cause he has a sinisterly innocence look to him and Vince Vaughn look to goofy to play Norman Bates.
It's just so strange... what an odd moment in film history. Not good but certainly fascinating. Bates Motel will be 100% forgotten as well. The original will not.
The problem with it is clearly Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates btw I’m pretty sure since the movie was released in December the studio was hoping for Oscar nominations
They should’ve changed the ending. When they spin the chair around to reveal the corpse of Normans mother , the corpse should of come out the chair and did some killing and Norman isn’t the killer
