Rating:

I’m kind of torn about the inclusion of Psycho on the 100 Greatest list. Yeah, I like it. Yeah, everyone considers it a classic, and I guess that makes it one; there’s no official definition of “classic” after all. That status is bestowed on a film by subjective group consensus rather than objective analysis. But the thing about Psycho is that, even though I do enjoy it, I recognize that it has a number of flaws. It’s nothing hugely grievous, but there are a lot of little things that, taken together, add up to a movie that essentially succeeds in spite of itself.

That’s not to say I wouldn’t recommend it. I’ve seen it many times and still derive enjoyment from it, and if you’ve never seen it and somehow have managed to go through life without ever hearing the details of its plot, then holy cow you should see it right away. I can still distinctly remember the first time I saw the flick as a small child. I went into it not knowing a thing about the movie. I was thrown for a loop when, a third of the way through, it suddenly turns from a story about an embezzler to a ghastly murder mystery, and I was completely blown away when the full details of the mystery were revealed at the movie’s end. I never, ever saw it coming and my socks were, as they say, knocked off (which might explain why now I can never find any when I need them). So if you’ve never seen it, you definitely ought.

It’s on repeat viewings, however, that you start to see the cracks in what at first seemed to be a rock solid foundation. Little things here and there begin to jump out at you as being a lot less fascinating than you’d first believed. After the first murder, there is a lengthy scene devoted to cleaning up the mess. Just as the tension is finally really revved up in the form of a brutal slaying, the movie does a complete one-eighty, slowing to a crawl as we watch Anthony Perkins mop his bathroom. There’s an even longer scene at the end of the movie where a character I like to call “Exposition Dan” gives an interminable speech explaining the twist ending, I guess in case the audience was too ass-tarded to figure it out on their own. It’s a tedious scene, and on top of that it’s something of an insult to the intelligence of the viewer. Did Hitchcock really think nobody would be able to figure it out without this oily-haired cat talking down to us with a smarmy grin on his face?

And then there’s Bernard Herrmann’s score. Everyone knows the screechy “ree ree ree” music used during the famous shower scene; it’s practically become synonymous with death by stabbing. That aspect of the music is good, I shan’t deny it. It’s very much the exact musical equivalent of a sharp knife slicing through the air toward your flesh with intent to maim. But the rest of the score is oppressively heavy-handed. Instead of being scary, it has the effect of shouting at you “I AM SCARY MUSIC, AM I NOT?” But it’s just a lie meant to cover the fact that the music doesn’t do what it says it will-and everyone can tell it’s a lie. Sort of like when a nerdy kid tells you about his girlfriend who lives two towns over.

Why, then, has this movie endured? For one, it’s undeniably a good story. The details of Norman Bates’ life make a ripping yarn. (And the story of the real-life psycho on whom Norman is loosely based, Ed Gein, is no less interesting and even more gruesome.) Mostly, however, I think this movie’s continued success is a testament to Anthony Perkins’ absolutely stellar turn as Norman Bates. It’s the performance of a lifetime, for sure. Virtually every line is given an odd quirk, an unexpected subtlety or a layer of nuance only an actor of remarkable capabilities could impart. Anthony Perkins is Norman Bates. He brings the character to life in every way, making him live and breathe and pop off the screen in a way very few characters have in all of cinema history. By creating a character so believable, both frightening and sympathetic simultaneously, the audience is able to connect with his story and so become wrapped up in it, leaving them more willing to overlook some of the negative aspects of the film than they might otherwise be.

What we’re left with is a film that has its share of both bad and good, so I think a rating of three out of five is fair. It’s an enjoyable picture, but also an overpraised one. Hitchcock made better movies, and there have been better films in the same genre since. There have also been many that were worse, however, and I suspect that has as much to do with Psycho’s staying power as the merits of the film itself. It’s a good movie…but I don’t know that it’s one of the 100 best.

If You Hated This, You Will Also Totally Hate:

• Yankee Doodle Dandy
• 2001: A Space Odyssey
• Misery
• Halloween: Resurrection
• It’s a Wonderful Life