paulclaassen It felt the film was moving in circles and not really going anymore. The dialogue about Norman's mother became annoyingly repetitive and the character's actions became questionable. This was boring. Nothing about this yawner is credible.

tomsview It was after seeing Robert Galluzzo's 2010 documentary "The Psycho Legacy", about the making of the three sequels to Alfred Hitchcock's "Pyscho", that I appreciated the talent and energy that went into them. Not just cashing in, they were labours of love, and homages to the original.Anthony Perkins played Norman Bates again and directed "Psycho III". Some think it's the best, but I feel "Psycho II" directed by Aussie Richard Franklin probably faced the biggest challenge in being the first to dust off the Bates Motel register.Apparently the cast and crew enjoyed the experience of working with Tony Perkins except Meg Tilly; it seems they didn't get on although it may have been more him than her. Nonetheless, Meg Tilly is one of the reasons to watch this movie - the camera loved her and her slightly detached style complimented Perkin's unique approach."Psycho II" is complex. By the end, a conga line of people have put on Mother's fright wig and picked up the carving knife. Vera Miles returns as Lila Crane although she has a darker agenda than in the original. A number of people are dispatched in "Psycho II", but we can't be sure Norman is responsible for any of them.It was hard for the sequels to totally avoid seeming like parodies of the original. I think audience anticipation added to that effect; we wait for the equivalents of the surprises in the original: the peephole; Marion in the shower; Martin Balsam on the stairs; Mother in the rocker.There are a number of inventive deaths in all the sequels and Norman is just about the only character left standing in "Psycho II". However none of the deaths have the impact of Janet Leigh's demise in the original.All the sequels have the nudity, stab wounds and gore that Hitch could only hint at. However despite the understanding of all the superficialities that made the murders in the first one so chilling, the sequels missed the key ingredient - the relentlessness.The shower scene in the original goes on and on; Mother (helped by Herrmann's urgent strings) just doesn't know when to stop, and then the camera lingers long on the aftermath. To illustrate the point, another movie where that relentlessness is demonstrated is "Irreversible" - the camera dwells on the carnage in a couple of scenes that are truly shocking.With that said though, all the "Psycho" sequels have their moments, and the considered over-the-top approach of "Psycho II" still delivers a twist or two.

slimer8489 Okay, so I'm a big Alfred Hitchcock fan. He's my filmmaking idol and I owe so much to him. One of my favorites of his is Psycho, which I really loved. Naturally, I would check out the sequels.Usually, a sequel to a really great movie (especially if the original director is not involved) is doomed to fail. But not always. Definitely not in this movie. I actually enjoyed Psycho II. I liked how it continued the story and turned Norman Bates into a sympathetic character this time around. He's trying to start fresh and live a normal life, but his demons still haunt him and some of the townspeople remind him of his horrid past. This story is quite fresh and original. I like how Norman is trying to change. I'm so glad Universal chose to not follow the Psycho II book, which was about Norman going to Hollywood. That would have been stupid.Not only is the story good, but once again, Anthony Perkins nails the part of Norman Bates. He still acts so awkwardly. The music, done by Jerry Goldsmith, is also good. But nothing can top Bernard Herrmann's famous score of the original. Like the first film, it had a great twist ending that you didn't see coming, but one thing I hated about the ending is the shark-jumping moment where we find out that (spoiler alert) Norma Bates didn't give birth to Norman. It was her sister. Yeah. I'm just as appalled as you are.Overall, this is a pretty good sequel that doesn't deserve the hate that it gets. Of course, it's not trying to top the Alfred Hitchcock classic. It's trying to do its own thing. Also, it's not a cheap retread of the previous film. That was saved for the next movie.

adonis98-743-186503 After twenty-two years of psychiatric care, Norman Bates attempts to return to a life of solitude, but the specters of his crimes - and his mother - continue to haunt him. Psycho II pays homage to the original 1960 classic but also as a movie itself and bringing back 2 of the original cast members from the first film is more than welcome yes it did take 22 years to be made but it makes sense it's also a great psychological thriller and the film does have some good performances and it's way better than most horror films of this decade. Anthony Perkins owns the role and he is easily the best thing of those movies the film has some great scenes like the blood coming out of the toilet and the floor, the classic scene from the first film including the music but also Norman starting to get insane once more now the ending is kinda the low point on the film with those weird stabbing parts and those 2 major deaths but then again it's a thriller stupid stuff must happen. In the end Psycho 2 is much much better than most movies that come today but also as good as the Original with some new and old problems that the first film suffered from for example the pacing.