Trevor

These "2009 DVDTalk Horror Challenge Day #" threads are for the discussion of the films in the 31 Films in 31 Days subset.

General discussion on the 2009 DVDTalk Horror Challenge goes here, your list for the Challenge goes here.

The plan is for everyone to watch this film on the October day in the thread title, and to start discussing it the morning of the following day. You may start discussion early if you want, but the preferred plan is for this to be as much of a group exercise as possible, with all of us viewing it "together" and discussing after.

Of course, you are totally encouraged to participate in these threads even if you haven't watched the movie on the designated day. Even if you haven't watched it in years, or are not participating in the Horror Challenge, please feel free to chime in.

Spoiler tags will not be needed, as it will be expected that anyone here has seen the film.

Do not read this thread if you have not seen the film, unless you don't mind the ending being spoiled for you.

Trevor

Underrated sequel. I quite enjoyed this.

clckworang

I was actually surprised to feel the same way. As a big fan of the first one and Hitchcock in general, I always avoided the sequels. Was it as good as the first one? Certainly not, but it was a pretty solid movie. Plus, I thought it added a bit more to the story that made it a bit more than just the run-of-the-mill slasher movie. The ending was especially good!

Groucho

This was merely "okay" as I recall. The third one was a lot better.

Cardsfan111

I've always enjoyed Psycho II. Has their ever been a case previously where a sequel took place so long after an original (in this case 23 years)? I think it still worked so well because they were able to bring back Anthony Perkins in the role of Norman.

On a personal note, since the sequel came out when I was young, I had seen it several times before I ever saw the original!

indiephantom

This was the first of the Psycho films I saw when I was thirteen and it hit video. It has remained one of the films that I credit with getting me interested in horror. This is how sequels should be. It continues the story of the original film with great ambition. Perkins creates a character that I find myself feeling empathy for and also feeling afraid of. The locations in the film are absolute classics and Franklin does a great job of evoking some Hitchcockian suspense. Dean Cundey's cinematography is quite good and there is an amazing high angle shot when a young girl flees the Bates' house.

Look carefully for an homage to the Hitchcock film cameo in the form of the master's unmistakable silhouette cast as a shadow in Mother's bedroom. Cool touch.

wakwak007

I liked this sequel a lot. I still remember seeing it in the theatre. (Wheaton K-B) Now that I think of it Psycho 4 was bad either.

indiephantom

Yeah, this is one series where I really enjoy all of the films.

Daytripper

I thought this sequel was quite good. And it was well received at the time it came out in the theaters. I remember seeing it in a packed house and the response was great (screaming, clapping, etc). I've seen #3 and #4 and don't remember them being anywhere near as good. I'll have to give them another try.

JOE29

Yes, all 4 are good. But I really like Psycho II the best.
When he carries that old woman upstairs after he hits her on the head with the shovel at the end of the movie.
that old mother, granny voice comes alive. That really creeps me out.
His mother's voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

Daytripper

There are many many creepy and effective scenes in "II". I think the worst, and one that still makes me feel it, is when Meg Tilly goes to fend off Norman with a butcher knife and he grabs it with both hands. By the blade end. And she pulls it from his hands. I remember the audience reacting the most and turning their heads from that.

Trevor

Anthony Perkins was really underrated. I enjoyed him in The Black Hole and a couple TV roles as well.

My OCD won't let me watch a sequel without seeing the original. Even if they are unrelated, I just can't do it. And this is one sequel that sort of ruins the original for you. Well, you still appreciated the original when you saw it I imagine, but it definitely would have been better going into it blind, right?
Missed this the first time, thanks for pointing it out!
Usually, when companies make sequels to great works by great directors, the results are awful. I was really surprised that they pulled it off here, not just once, but thrice!
I have to turn my head at that scene every time.

Mr. Noir

I've always loved this sequel ever since I was a kid. The performances are certainly impressive, especially from Perkins and the great Robert Loggia, who always brings a touch of class to every role he plays. Universal really cleaned up this film for its 2005 DVD release and the beautiful cinematography by Dean Cundey certainly stands out. Finally tracked down a copy of the long OOP soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith on CD several years ago. The opening theme with the Bates House in the background with the changing colors is quite haunting.