Movie Review – Psycho II

Psycho II (1983)
Written by Tom Holland
Directed by Richard Franklin

In an era where every mildly successful film is spun out into a franchise, it might not seem strange for there to be a Psycho sequel, let alone three of them plus a shot-by-shot remake, a failed NBC pilot, and a prequel TV series. It should be strange, though. Psycho was such a singular event in American film, one that feels to me that there isn’t more to the story to tell, and I don’t need to know the fate of Norman Bates or how he got the way he is. Alfred Hitchcock is not my favorite director, but I respect the hell out of the boundaries he pushed during the 1960s, inspiring many filmmakers to come. The best way to show appreciation for him would be to make clever films about the human psyche, not regurgitate his established work. 

Twenty-two years after the arrest of Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) for his series of murders, he is deemed mentally sound enough to re-enter society. Marion’s sister Lila (Vera Miles) protests, but Norman’s doctor, Bill Raymond (Robert Loggia), stands by his patient. Norman moves back into his family home behind the motel. However, this oasis along the highway is managed by Toomey (Dennis Franz), a scummy figure who has opened the place up as a flop house with underage sex workers frequenting the rooms with their johns. Norman gets a job at a diner in town, where he meets Mary (Meg Tilley), who needs a place to stay. Norman offers her a spare room in his house, and she accepts. 

Notes begin appearing around the house, addressed by Mother. They admonish Norman for doing things she disapproves of. Then, the phone calls. Mother is on the other end, telling her boy to get in line and please her. Two teenagers sneak into the mansion’s basement to have sex but a figure appears and stabs one of them to death, the girl escapes and heads for town. Of course, authorities believe Norman is behind this, but there’s little beyond circumstantial evidence to support those claims. Is Norman still mentally unwell, or is someone else behind these murders?

This is not a horrible movie. I argue it’s an unnecessary movie, and it falls far beneath the bar set by the original. The strongest element by far is Anthony Perkins reprising his role as Norman. It’s evident he has thought a lot about the character and performs him with a balanced mix of goodwill & terror. My favorite moment showcasing this is his initial confrontation with Toomey. Norman asks Mary to go up to the house, sporting a smile, and she says she doesn’t mind staying. Norman firmly reiterates for her to go up to the house. As soon as Mary is out of eyesight, Norman’s smile fades, and his entire face changes from a happy-go-lucky guy into this primitive ape face. He looks at Toomey as if he’s nothing more than a piece of meat. It’s a reminder of what a fantastic actor Perkins always was. He gives his all in the performance, even in a sequel like this.

The premise of the film, someone trying to convince Norman he is unwell enough that he’ll start committing murders again, isn’t a bad way back into the character. The author of the original novel, Robert Bloch, wrote a sequel book, but it was a satirical take on Hollywood with much of Bloch’s feelings about the industry folded into a tale of Bates going on a killing spree in the film world. Ideas like that would eventually become a part of Wes Craven’s Scream franchise, but I wish we had seen that here. I like the idea of Perkins as Bates taking part in a satire of how Hollywood exploits and profits.

Roger Ebert said it best that “it continued the story but not the spell of the original.” Undoubtedly, this is Norman Bates, and the sets are all pitch-perfect. We see what happens next in his life. But the magic of the original Psycho is not present. Director Richard Franklin, a longtime admirer and protege of Hitchcock, tries to inject moments of artistic flair. The matte painting/overhead shot of the teenage girl fleeing the Bates home certainly feels like an attempt at such a thing. I don’t think Franklin was sloppy; I just believe he lacked the filmmaking acumen that was such a natural part of Hitchcock. One of the reasons Hitch was able to make his films so palpable is that he, too, was quite fucked up in the head, and so he allowed the camera to become an extension of the audience’s own perversions. Psycho II feels much more like a television movie.

Psycho II doesn’t do itself favors by continuously quoting the original film, albeit through references in the script or straight scenes from the first film spliced into this one. The picture opens with the famous shower scene, so the audience is immediately reminded of how good the original film is. I would love to be able to view this movie in isolation, but it insists upon clinging to the picture that started it all. I actually think horror sequels are the worst thing about horror movies. What is scary is being in a place of confusion & fear. By the end of a horror film, there is typically some catharsis, a release. The horror has been negated either in being defeated or the victim succumbing to it. Retreading that ground is always done with the mystery absent. 

Part of the appeal of the first Psycho is that the audience is just as confused as the regular folks investigating Marion Crane’s disappearance. The reveal that Norman is a mentally troubled man with dissociative identities is shocking. Making a movie that lacks that mystery requires introducing a new mystery. The mystery here feels very schlocky, in my opinion. The first film wasn’t the most classy affair, but there was an atmosphere that it was operating at a high intellectual level. Psycho II feels pedestrian, unable to help itself in using the cred of the first movie to try to pass as a great movie. It’s not; it’s good, but a significant decline in quality.

Did we need a sequel to Psycho? Certainly not. Hollywood rarely asks if we want more of something; they look at popularity and decide a second scoop, albeit a worse recipe, is good enough. Perkins is sympathetic here, but the terror he evoked in the original is gone. This isn’t the worst horror movie to put on if you are in the Halloween mood, but I think it plays even weaker if watched back-to-back with Hitchcock’s original.