Review of Psycho (2007) by Griff C — 19 Oct 2017

I know it's now almost cliché to heap praise upon a film that most have generally deemed to be a classic. However, I don't care - I can't think of a single thing I dislike about Psycho. First, it can't be understated how influential this was in creating the slasher subgenre of horror.

This was among the first movies that brought horror away from the mythic, gothic monsters and into our modern-day society. However, to merely call it a slasher movie would be a disservice - contrary to what stereotypes much of the genre would later fall into, the characters here are well fleshed out and are the focus of the story.

That is, the killings themselves aren't really the main priority. [SPOILERS for a movie that's been out since 1960, c'mon people] It was also bold to kill off the main character midway through the film (a choice that would still be bold today).

However, it's a sensible story point - not everybody's story wraps up neatly at the end of the day, that's just real life. While speaking of the characters, I would be in remiss to not praise the cast as a whole.

There is not one weak link here. I would go into each performer in more detail, but I'd be here all day and wouldn't want to leave anybody out. However, I do want to specifically address director Alfred Hitchcock.

He took the gritty source material (Robert Bloch's 1959 novel of the same name, check it out if you already haven't) and turned it into a sleek and suspenseful ride that is still faithful to the book.

The film is a piece of art that is even enjoyable to just look at. All-in-all, there is no reason for any movie fan worth anything to miss Psycho. Does Norman Bates kill as often as Leatherface? No. Is there as much violence as in a Halloween movie? Certainly not.

But those aren't the points of the movie, are they?