Psycho II

Meg Tilly drives me psycho. Psycho II does the impossible: it's not garbage. Never before has a movie talked about "toasted cheese sandwiches" so much, it's nonstop.

Suffers a bit primarily by not being a Hitchcock film, and ends up feeling like a slightly watered-down slasher. That said, Perkins reprises his role to an enjoyable degree, and Tilly has her charms. It definitely gets a bit nuts, but that somehow seems appropriate. Oddly entertaining.

If Psycho was Norman finally reaching his rock bottom of violent psychosis, Psycho II is his attempt to climb out and fight for redemption. It's a refreshing, thoughtful take with a decent dose of mystery when this could have just been written as a straightforward lurid, gory, 80s slasher, Norman Bates hacking and slashing his way through a neon nightmare (hello again Psycho III!). PERKINS IS AWESOME. also meg tilly!

I've seen the original Psycho at least a dozen times spanning twenty years but have just now in 2018 watched this for the first time. And... I'm not sure if it's good, but it is certainly interesting, taking a somewhat more thoughtful approach with Norman, showing some sympathy for him while still finding room for some slasher movie violence and lunacy. Very odd but intriguing. Crushed on Meg Tilly a little.

Actually kind of rules. Heavily flawed but the general plot is strong enough that it holds together, even if it gets a little too crazy in the end.

A masterful horror film burdened by its connection to a classic, though the predicament pushes Franklin towards a rich exploration of movie iconography, equal parts reverence and regeneration.

As bad as the idea of a sequel sounds, it actually isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be.

Psycho II is a weirdly fascinating movie. It doesn't quite want you to know who you're rooting for or why it's being made for that matter, but it drags you along for the ride anyways. It's definitely better than you'd expect a sequel to be, but still not necessary. Definitely one of the weirder movies in this marathon, for me.

Norman is so sympathetic here, it's a a bold choice to frame the killer from the first film as the good guy for the sequel and Anthony Perkins completely makes it work. The only major issue is just that it tips its hand a little too early in revealing the machinations.

watchable

Presumably made to cash in on the popularity of slasher flicks, at least this makes an effort to try & live up to its predecessor instead of slumming w/ its offspring. There is a compelling mystery (though it takes an hour to show)& the last 10 minutes are legitimately surprising, clarifying some of what's come before. The big problem is the first hour which is stuffed with contrivances designed only to get people killed, plotholes & a mountain of implausibilities, only some which get explained.

Anthony Perkins describes the movie as being shot in "black and color" as opposed to black and white. I don't know why, but I think that's awesome. This is above average and does well in paying tribute to a suspense film it could never hope to match. I recommend you watch it on a portable while in the shower.

Surprisingly potent sequel. This is a well-crafted mixture of black humor and slasher horror but gets a little out of hand as it nears its confusing conclusion -- and runs about 10 minutes too long. The blade-down-the-throat scene is a highlight; look for the Hitchcock cameo in Mrs. Bates's bedroom.

I was wrong

It's surprising that this is as decent as it is, what's even more surprising is that the third one is better.

Lost me at the end ngl

59.2.

Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) returns home from the institution after being declared cured. He tries to return to 'normal' life and befriends fellow worker Mary (Meg Tilly) at the diner where he now works. But he starts to doubt his sanity again when he starts seeing reminders of his dead mother and people start dying again. Is he back to his old habits? Surprisingly effective sequel released decades later find Perkins in fine form as Norman.

Anthony imPerkins

Better than it has any right to be. By this I don't mean it's good at all: it isn't. But it could've been way worse, tbh. But again, it is bad lol. The script is bad, the dialogues are just odd and nonsensical a lot of times, overall quite messy; it's bad but it could've been worse. That resumes it, basically. Also, the ending is... a big "huh...?" moment.

stylistcally lacking in everything that made the original special

It obviously falls short when compared to Psycho. However, nearly every horror/suspense movie would fall short if compared with Hitchcock's masterpiece. So to leave a review at just that would be to do this film a disservice. It isn't some corporate cash-in but instead is an intelligent, psychological tale that is clearly respectful, reverent even, of the original. Making Norman a victim of his own psychosis was genius and Perkins' acting is sharp as ever. Meg Tilly is brilliant as Mary as well

Although many horror sequels are godawful, this one is...okay. Jerry Goldsmith's score is wonderful, as is Perkins' performance as a Norman Bates who genuinely fears losing his mind again. Some of the plot retcons (which was then retconned further by later sequels!) are pretty terrible though.

Even through there was no way this film could ever live up to the original. Perkins and Franklin gave it their best shot. The result is a suitably tense and well acted sequel. One good enough be labeled: Underrated.

This film does try, it is not just a mindless sequel. However some of the plot twists are not satisfying. The cast does a good job here. Overall this film is not as good as the original.

Disrespectable with the original. That's why this is so delicious. All the elements are here -- not just mansion and motel, but knife, basement, mom's clothes. For the first time we have full access to Psycho's mind -- yet limited by Bates' own inner narrative of "Bates wasn't my mom, she just raised me; mom is calling me, she wants to meet me". Franklin approaches gore and slasher with such confidence in framing -- diagonal shots FTW. Beautiful take on a canon film that dares to be original.

Certainly ot a classic like the original ,however II is quite better than your as average thriller..suspenseful and well crafted...

It's ultimately a pointless sequel that was made to cash in on the slasher trend, but Aussie director Franklin somehow makes it work, paying tribute to the original without copying it. Perkins reprises his classic role of psychotic mamma's boy Norman Bates 25 years later to chilling effect, even if he is a little hammy, and the plot has enough fresh twists and turns to keep you guessing. The death scenes are memorable and seemingly influenced by Giallo, and the pace is brisk.

Surprisingly worthy, by the director of the even better Road Games.

As a sequel (which i normally don't enjoy) This one is surprisingly watchable.Slasher with a nice mix of humour. Just don't bother with any after this one!

Liked this way more than I thought possible. Kept me guessing way more than I'd thought, though I'm still not sure about the sure ending... but maybe thats a good thing? The original Psycho had many things going for it, but are you really gonna say the ending way one of them? Reeking of a strangely weird understanding of psychology as it did.

I have to echo most of other reviews - this sequel is better than you would expect, but that doesn't mean the film is actually good. The twist can be seen miles away. What I really liked in this film is Meg Tilly. She looks like some kind of cute wild animal.

For everyone claiming that unnecessary, money grab sequels are a new problem in Hollywood, this film is Exhibit A in the case that it''s been going on for decades

Terrible! It was hard to stay awake.. but somehow I liked the main actor :P, talking about overacting..

Very surprising.

Surprise Surprise. It's good.

I don't think you can see Psycho II without having seen the first, but it really is more of a standalone-type of film. It has a completely different approach and tone to it and it nothing like Psycho. The acting is pretty bad, but the movie was okay overall.

Decent sequel.

a decent sequel to the original, i didn't think it was overly great but it was good to see where Norman Bates was 23 years later

A well-acted successor. Perkins and Miles reprise their original roles in this ingeniously plotted but not especially scary thriller.

"...the film clearly could have been much worse."

far project from prototype but also not the worst

not a great sequel but it was still pretty entertaining, better then parts 3 or 4 by a long shot.

Why oh why.

Less successful sequel but the ending was nicely build.

I own it and therefore I'll never give it lower than an 80. This is a much better movie than you are anticipating and you should definitely watch Psycho first.

My fave of the sequels, which follows the laws of diminishing returns all to well unfortunely. Still, not a patch on the original. Toe knee :-)

Surprisingly good

Poor.

It could've been worse, but this has absolutely no reason to exist.