A well-acted successor. Perkins and Miles reprise their original roles in this ingeniously plotted but not especially scary thriller.

a decent sequel to the original, i didn't think it was overly great but it was good to see where Norman Bates was 23 years later

I don't think you can see Psycho II without having seen the first, but it really is more of a standalone-type of film. It has a completely different approach and tone to it and it nothing like Psycho. The acting is pretty bad, but the movie was okay overall.

As bad as the idea of a sequel sounds, it actually isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be.

Decent sequel.

An unnecessary sequel that should have never been made. That doesn't mean it isn't great. Anthony Perkins is back, and brilliant, as Norman Bates. The film doesn't even approach the greatness of the original. As film critic Roger Ebert said "It continues the story [of Psycho], but not the spell."

I own it and therefore I'll never give it lower than an 80. This is a much better movie than you are anticipating and you should definitely watch Psycho first.

Oh, good god, good god.

Surprisingly good

Poor.

It could've been worse, but this has absolutely no reason to exist.

My fave of the sequels, which follows the laws of diminishing returns all to well unfortunely. Still, not a patch on the original. Toe knee :-)

not a great sequel but it was still pretty entertaining, better then parts 3 or 4 by a long shot.

Surprisingly potent sequel. This is a well-crafted mixture of black humor and slasher horror but gets a little out of hand as it nears its confusing conclusion -- and runs about 10 minutes too long. The blade-down-the-throat scene is a highlight; look for the Hitchcock cameo in Mrs. Bates's bedroom.

"...the film clearly could have been much worse."

far project from prototype but also not the worst

Why oh why.

This shouldn't be the case at all, but it's shockingly good.

I liked the ending.