Psycho II

Rarely has a movie had the deck so stacked against its existence than Psycho II. Consider this: it was a legacy sequel at a time when that wasn't even a concept, meaning the property was ice-cold at the time of release. It was a sequel to one of the most revered horror movies in history. And it was a sequel to a horror movie released in middle (probably the downhill side, if we're being honest) of the slasher movie craze of the 80's, when horror movie sequels were farted out on a regular basis and treated with as much respect as passed gas. That this had Anthony Perkins and Vera Miles returning meant nothing; it looked like an unnecessary cash-grab. And yet, Psycho II manages to not only pull off justifying its own existence, it moves the story forward in a bold, fresh way without being a rehash. Somehow, it manages to pull off the Alien/Aliens genre tweaking AND successfully creates a legacy sequel that doesn't depend on Easter eggs. Picked up 22 years after the original, Psycho II follows Norman Bates as he's released from a mental hospital and tries to go back to a normal life. Some in town are willing to give him a chance, but others -- especially Lila Crane, sister to Marion Crane, Norman's victim in the shower scene -- won't forgive and forget. Someone is trying to drive Norman crazy again, and someone is killing people around Norman in a way identical to his murder spree. What follows is a suspense thriller about forgiveness, trauma, the intent of incarceration, and the dynamics of the parent-child relationship. Where the original Psycho is a slow-burn movie that seeks to disarm the viewer with Norman's young, affable, if awkward charm as it ratchets up the tension with the seemingly malevolent Mother, Psycho II is more psychological in nature. Psycho was about the world of the Bates Motel; it was Marion's story, then Norman's, and also Mother's, and a little bit of Lila's. Psycho II is Norman's story, and it challenges the viewer to take a stance on something no other horror movie sequel has asked: can you forgive the killer and sympathize with them? Incarceration, whether it's a prison or a mental health facility, is meant to rehabilitate, so Psycho II carries that to the logical end. If Norman's doctor and the court agree that Norman has paid his debt to society, should he be allowed to re-enter society? Is the public obliged to tolerate him? Can we trust his seemingly earnest attempt at leading a normal life? Psycho II challenges the viewer with these questions, and showing what happens when some who do not forgive weaponize that grudge. Cleverly, the movie never answers its own question of whether Norman could've successfully become a functional, normal human being again. Surely Lila's vendetta did serious damage, we can see that, but whether this was all because of Lila or an inevitability that was only hastened is left up to the viewer. None of this works without Anthony Perkins absolutely owning it in every scene. This Norman is older and sadder. He's lost a significant portion of his life to madness, and all he wants to do is rebuild and try to get a life he's never known. Perkins' performance nails the turbulence in the man's heart and mind; it would be so easy to slip into the Mother personality again and kitchen knife all his problems away, but he doesn't want to do that. Any time he has to show nerve, there's a hint of "is this a breaking point?" in Perkins' performance. When he opens the kitchen drawer and sees the knife and he hurriedly closes it again, Perkins captures the fear in Norman perfectly. He was excellent in Psycho, but he is on another level in Psycho II, because he gets to show way more range. And that's not to take away from the other actors; Vera Miles' Lila is driven by outrage and a lust for vengeance, so much so that she manipulates her daughter to help gaslight Norman, effectively becoming just as controlling and evil and psychotic as Norman's mother was (without the body count). Meg Tilly's Mary, Lila's daughter, is another complex character, at first a willing partner in the charade, and then, as she sees the damage she's doing, tries to help but only makes it worse. While the direction is definitely trying to mimic Hitchcock, with the use of odd and disorienting angles, the Vertigo zoom, and other funky cinematography, it never feels like a cheap imitation. It's more of an homage, and a loving one. Of course it doesn't have the elegance of Hitch, but as an homage, it's good enough. What doesn't work as well is the ramped-up violence. I don't have a problem with the body count -- all the kills actually serve a purpose in the story -- but the kills are unnecessarily violent and occasionally silly (the psychiatrist's kill gives the middle finger to physics in a way that breaks immersion). I love me a good gory kill, but Psycho didn't need it, and Psycho II doesn't other. I know why it did -- different audience, different expectations -- but that doesn't mean I have to like it. It just feels out of place in a movie that is so driven by psychology. I've seen a lot of reviews that say Psycho II is good, but doesn't hold a candle to the original, and I think that misses the point. You can compare Child's Play and Child's Play 2 because they're both cut from the same cloth. Psycho and Psycho II are not. Just because it's a continuation doesn't mean they're comparable. This is not trying to be the same cut-and-paste more-of-the-same horror movie sequel. This is trying to do something new. Whether it holds up against the original is not only irrelevant, I think it does a disservice to this movie. Do I have it rated as high as the original? No, largely because of the misplaced reliance on gore. But do I think it is a worthy follow-up to Psycho, while also standing on its own and charting its own path instead of regurgitating what the original did? Absolutely.