Psycho III (1986)

Waste of time

It is a performances centric movie

hyped garbage

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

The 1960 'Psycho' is one of Alfred Hitchcock's greatest films and while it is high up in my list of "scariest films of all time" it doesn't stop it from being a personal favourite. Mainly for the cinematography, Hitchcock's direction, the music score and Anthony Perkins.Before seeing either of the sequels, there was the feeling of "what was the point? The 1960 film was perfect as it was and didn't need a sequel let alone three as well as a television film and a remake". Actually found myself very pleasantly surprised by 'Psycho II', and despite reviews being very, very mixed (leaning towards the negative) 'Psycho III' was also better than anticipated. The previous two films are superior from personal opinion but there are sequels out there that disgrace their originals far more than this does.'Psycho III' could have been better certainly. The nudity was overused and not necessary, and while the gore is suitably shocking and handled more tastefully it also could have been used less. The religious elements added absolutely nothing and to me they actually confused and muddled the story.Some of the dialogue is laughably cheesy and rambles, Norman Bates' also fairly repetitive.However, 'Psycho III' has a huge amount to like. It once again boasts some very stylish and moody cinematography and the setting is still eerie even in colour. Carter Burwell's score is very haunting and in its best parts sends chills down the spine.The film, as mentioned, is directed by none other by Norman Bates himself Anthony Perkins. His direction is assured and more than capable without being mind-blowing. The story is paced neatly and intrigues throughout with some nods to the original 'Psycho', an opening reminiscent of 'Vertigo', some clever darkly wicked humour and some suitably creepy and suspenseful set-pieces, the phone booth scene coming very close to rivalling the original's iconic shower scene in terrifying horror. Personally didn't think it was that melodramatic or excessive, and that only the religious elements and nudity had an air of vulgarity.It's not just Perkins who gives an as expected wonderful performance in his most famous role, and he has not lost any of what made the performance so unforgettable before. Diana Scarwid is poignant with her chemistry with Perkins providing some heart, and Jeff Fahey plays a sleaze to perfection.On the whole, not a great film but could have been so much worse. 6/10 Bethany Cox

I don't get it. Wherever I go, it seems like everyone is bashing Psycho II, yet praising Psycho III. Even Roger Ebert liked this movie... Why?This is pretty much the first film, but with tons of gore, in color, and made in the '80s. Don't believe me? Well, we've got Norman looking through the peephole, we got a scene that imitates the famous shower scene, and even part of the plot deals with a woman who resembles Marion Crane and shares the same initials as her. Also, this film tries to do WAY too much. Okay, so we got an ex- nun on the run because she doesn't believe in God, some future rock star who applies at the Bates Motel, a snoopy reporter trying to dig up information from the previous two movies, and Norman Bates thrown in there somewhere. A lot of things didn't make sense, like why the aforementioned future rock star suddenly went crazy. Usually, with an unexpected crazy person, there are subtle hints. But not here! He just randomly goes crazy. Also, why did the Marion Crane lookalike suddenly go back to the Bates Motel? She pretty much found out from the reporter that Norman is a nutcase, so that's what drove her away. Then, in the next scene, she's talking with a priest or something, saying, "I must go back!" or something. It would have been interesting to have her reasoning for going back because Norman is proof of God existing, since he's like the Devil, but as I recall, the lady didn't have a motive to go back. She just randomly did it. And then, we have Norman going on a rampage and killing people. Oh, where have I seen that before? I did find the ending quite surprising, as (spoiler alert) Norman actually decapitates the head of his mother's corpse, suggesting that he is now set free from his demons. But then, at the last second, they cop out and have Norman pull that evil grin again. In the first one, it was terrifying. But here, it feels so tacked on, just like the peephole scene.But there were some things I liked, like how some of the supporting characters from Psycho II return, like the cop who was sympathetic with Norman. But this guy does have one stupid line of dialogue, and that comes at the end, when Norman is finally being arrested. He's like "I was for you, Norman. I believed in you." Really? This is the second time this has happened in recent times and you still believed in him. True, Norman wasn't really behind the killings in Psycho II, but still. He should have been feeling a bit suspicious by this point. Also, I liked how Anthony Perkins took over the role as director. I mean, if there's anyone who knows Norman Bates, it's him. And finally, I liked how they immediately discard that stupid retcon from the end of Psycho II, and Norma's sister never gave birth to Norman. But those weren't enough to save this movie.So, Psycho III. It's an overrated sequel that doesn't really do anything new with the plot. I don't recommend it.Also, am I the only one who thinks the poster looks silly? Norman has the keys in his hand and he's making a goofy face that looks like he's saying, "Look! I got the keys! Guess what I'm gonna do now!?"

The ending of Psycho II left viewers in no doubt about Norman Bates' mental state: he was as mad as a box of frogs. Part III, directed by the series' star Anthony Perkins, sees Norman struggling to stay his stabbing hand when pretty ex-nun Maureen (Diana Scarwid) arrives at his motel, reminding the schizo killer of Marion Crane, his first victim. Sneaking into Maureen's room, carving knife at the ready, Norman discovers the young woman in the bath having slashed her wrists, and saves her life instead of taking it. Once out of hospital, Maureen returns to the motel where she and Norman gradually fall for each other. But 'mother' isn't about to let her son fraternise with a no good slut…Perkins' directorial debut, Psycho III is an assured piece of work, with lots of neat nods to the original movie, some terrific moments of black humour, and plenty of stylish visual touches, with particularly great use of colour throughout. It is true that the film is more 'slasher' than the previous films, with Norman upping the body count this time around, but the trashier elements—gore and gratuitous nudity—are offset by more nuanced moments between Norm and his mother, and the touching yet tragic relationship between two very emotionally troubled individuals. Excellent support comes from Jeff Fahey as Norman's sleazy assistant manager Duane Duke, and Roberta Maxwell as nosy reporter Tracy.7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.

Anthony Perkins directed the third installment of the psycho series and early on it was clear to see he wanted to make it his own. The beginning of the movie introduces two main characters played by Diana Scarwid and Jeff Fahey who cross paths at Bates Motel. The movie took awhile to develop but it held my interest throughout. Bring back the sheriff, cook and back story of Mrs Poole I thought was phenomenal writing maintaining the story and keeping it intact to the previous two. There was also a lot of little shots and dialog bits that played homage to the original two which I didn't mind since it was overloaded with them. What gives this movie an average five rating is a weak ending which I thought could have been scripted better. All and all its a solid addition to the Psycho franchise.