Original vs. Remake

Psycho

 

Psycho (1960)

Psycho (1998)

Psycho is an iconic horror film, directed by the well renowned Alfred Hitchcock. The film was based on the 1950 Robert Bloch's novel of the same name. Although many thought the film would not do well it grossed $50 million at the box offer. It was a critical success and has 96% on Rotten Tomato, 4/4 from Roger Ebert and 5/5 from The Telegraph. The remake of the film, Psycho (1998), was directed by

Gus Van Sant and was set out to be a shot for shot remake although it is in colour. The film had a $60 million budget but only made $37.1million at the  box office. It has a 4.6/10 on IMDb, 37% on Rotten Tomatoes and 1.5/4 from Roger Ebert.

 

 

This is the famous shower scene from both Psycho films put side by side.    

Psycho (1960)	Psycho (1998)
·         Black and white	·         Technicolour
·         Music sharp and sinister	·         Music redone and less sharp
·         Not inter cut with any other shots	·         Inter cut with other shots (clouds)
·         Mostly shot for shot	•     Mostly shot for shot

Remakes are made for many reasons for example to make more money, to apply to a more modern audience or to be converted into another language. I believe this remake of Psycho adds nothing to the original, it is rather bland and in my opinion cast wrongly. The purpose of the film was not to add anything new but a modern touch which backfired, it tried to add colure in order to add more gore but the reason for originals impact was the eerie black and white used. If anyone had seen the original, they would know the twist which is to come making the story predictable and unnecessary.

Over all I think remakes, when done well, can be entertaining as they offer aspects that many apply to a modern audience more. However, remakes that follow the same storyline and do not add anything to the original are pointless in my eyes.