‘Psycho II’ or — A Cut Above ?
I hadn’t seen ‘Psycho II’ (1983) since I was a teenager yet could still remember the plot over thirty years later, so it must have done something right. What I couldn’t remember was if the film was actually any good or not. I’ve always liked the original ‘Psycho’ (1960), but I really fell in love with it seeing it with live strings a couple of years back. But even in my teens the idea of a sequel to Hitchcock’s film always seemed, like Norman Bates himself, utterly insane.
Fortunately, and somewhat remarkably, ‘Psycho II’ works… just. It’s helped by making the sensible decision of extending the story in pretty much the only logical way possible as we follow Norman attempting to rehabilitate to the outside world after being released from a psychiatric hospital and build a life for himself. This allows for another sensible decision which is it makes Norman sympathetic — we WANT Norman to be succeed and be okay.
With this in mind ‘Psycho II’ takes full advantage of the one strength a sequel has over original movies — it already has a back-story and characters we know along with their various weaknesses and demons. ‘Psycho II’ knows that we know how this haunted house already works and where the booby traps are. We just hope Norman does too. So expectation and prior knowledge function well here adding to the suspense and mystery, and it’s an hour or so in until the movie begins to show its hand and we start to ‘get’ what’s going on. As a plot goes it’s very satisfying.
Throughout the film director Richard Franklin admirably knows when to stick to Hitchcock’s style and when to inject something new, keeping continuity with the original but never lapsing fully into homage or parody but also knowing when to subvert, usually for comic effect. The overall tone I would describe as ‘playful’ and the film has many nice touches. For example — notice the tea near the beginning. The first time we see normal Norman reach for it it’s the shiny, new stuff; the second time he’s making a cuppa he’s pulling the bad stuff out from the back.
The most enjoyable aspect of ‘Psycho II’ though, apart from a smart script, is Anthony Perkin’s performance which might be even better here than in the original. He’s given more to do, is more the focus and allowed a greater range of emotions. Plus Perkins knows exactly how to portray Bates. I love it when he is the kitchen and tells Meg Tilly’s character that he ‘forgot to bring any cuuuuuutlery’, the word sticking in his throat almost a parallel to his swallowing and gulping moment in the original.
There are some criticisms such as a couple of dodgy practical effects near the end and even though Dean Cundy provides excellent camerawork it does have the slight feel of a TV movie at times and I certainly prefer the black and white cinematography of Hitchcock’s. Plus there’s a slightly unnecessary punctuation mark at the end but it’s still better than the explain-o psychiatrist who pops up at the end of Hitchcocks. Still, these are niggles in a movie that contains more good than bad.
‘Psycho II’ is a fun and entertaining watch. It’s slickly made, self-aware, contains great dialogue, even better performances and the entire package all knits together nicely. If you’ve never seen it because you always assumed a sequel to ‘Psycho’ unnecessary, which it kinda is to be honest, and would be substandard then this might surprise you with how decent it is. It’s not as good as the original but as a sequel to one of the best and most influential thrillers of all times it’s an admirable stab.
