'Psycho' is the best. The sequel was disappointing and this, 'Psycho 3', is the worst by far. Honestly though, did we really think that the sequels would live up to the brilliantly done original?
Norman Bates and the Bates motel are back yet again equipped with a low budget, a forgettable cast (all excluding the darling Anthony Perkins) and a plot in which a lot more should have been done.
The only reason I even considered voting for 'Psycho 3' is that Perkins was the director. (The vote wasn't too high but it was better than nothing.) I love him, I adore him, he could have been a good director, but he shouldn't have come back to take charge of the second installment (third overall).
Perkins is fairly good in the role that make him well known. Once again, he is somewhat creepy, more so than what the role probably calls for, but hey, that's what makes him great. And once again, a bad supporting cast is brought in to merely fill scenes in the picture that really don't have a whole lot to do with...anything. I can't really recall who played what part or anything like that, I suppose because the performances were awful.
The killings, the murders that take place are weird. They sure have changed quite a lot from the original. They just don't make 'em the way they used to. Those were the good ole days. In fact, most of those scenes made me laugh more than anything else. Oh, that is bad.
Like 'Psycho 2,' 'Psycho 3' creeps along at the same slow pace, if not slower. Parts of it didn't piece together well and probably should have been left out during editing but if that had occurred, the total runtime would probably have been about eleven minutes and counting.
'Psycho 3' is one to be passed on. For those who skipped part two, I would recommend not going back to view it. 'Psycho' is the best, but these two films, made only to be recognized by the 'Psycho' name, don't amount to much.
PS - I am very sorry, Anthony, that this film bombed, but what can I say, the script was bad but you were a fairly good director (while you were still around).
Norman Bates and the Bates motel are back yet again equipped with a low budget, a forgettable cast (all excluding the darling Anthony Perkins) and a plot in which a lot more should have been done.
The only reason I even considered voting for 'Psycho 3' is that Perkins was the director. (The vote wasn't too high but it was better than nothing.) I love him, I adore him, he could have been a good director, but he shouldn't have come back to take charge of the second installment (third overall).
Perkins is fairly good in the role that make him well known. Once again, he is somewhat creepy, more so than what the role probably calls for, but hey, that's what makes him great. And once again, a bad supporting cast is brought in to merely fill scenes in the picture that really don't have a whole lot to do with...anything. I can't really recall who played what part or anything like that, I suppose because the performances were awful.
The killings, the murders that take place are weird. They sure have changed quite a lot from the original. They just don't make 'em the way they used to. Those were the good ole days. In fact, most of those scenes made me laugh more than anything else. Oh, that is bad.
Like 'Psycho 2,' 'Psycho 3' creeps along at the same slow pace, if not slower. Parts of it didn't piece together well and probably should have been left out during editing but if that had occurred, the total runtime would probably have been about eleven minutes and counting.
'Psycho 3' is one to be passed on. For those who skipped part two, I would recommend not going back to view it. 'Psycho' is the best, but these two films, made only to be recognized by the 'Psycho' name, don't amount to much.
PS - I am very sorry, Anthony, that this film bombed, but what can I say, the script was bad but you were a fairly good director (while you were still around).