Psycho Analysis (Part II)

When it comes to classic movies, most have failed to capture my enthusiasm. But one of the notable exceptions is Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. I liked it when I first saw it, and it has only grown in my esteem since then -- both just in ruminating on it, and in re-watching it. The more I grew to love Psycho, the stranger it seemed to me that it in fact had a number of sequels made in the 1980s. Sure, today even a moderately successful film will spawn follow-ups. But Psycho?

Just as Psycho II followed the original film by over 20 years, so does the action pick up more than two decades after the events of the original story. Norman Bates is being released from psychiatric confinement, ostensibly "cured" and free to return to life in his creepy house overlooking the Bates Motel. The sister of one of his victims is convinced he will relapse and murder again, but can't get anyone to take her seriously. And indeed, when Norman returns to the scene of his past crimes, his sanity begins to slip. Will he kill again, or is he truly reformed?

Now, of course, you must go into this second film having put from your mind the idea that it will live up to the original. That's not going to happen. In fact, Psycho II tests your resolve right out of the gate; its opening scene is a replay of the original's famous shower scene, a frankly foolish choice. Does anyone in the world -- even if they haven't seen Psycho -- actually need this particular bit of back story filled in for them? Why lead off with one of the classic moments of all cinema, that this movie is obviously never going to top?

Perhaps the strategy here is to force you to compare immediately, and to get over it. Because once you do get over it, Psycho II is actually better than you might expect. It's built on a fun gimmick -- not simply that it's a sequel to a horror film. Not even just that it brings back members of the original cast decades after the original. (Halloween has done that. Twice!) No, it does something I believe to be utterly unique in the genre: the killer of the first film is here in the second placed in the role of the victim/hero.

The psychological sophistication of the time period is obviously lacking, but there's enough here to put the audience in a bind. Are you supposed to be rooting for Norman to go full crazed slasher? That's what you're here to see, right? Are you not entertained? Or are you sympathetic to how much the deck is stacked against Norman? He's surrounded by potential triggers, essentially set up to fail. Is Norman losing his mind, or are the things he sees and hears really happening? It's actually quite intriguing how much more cerebral this movie is than the one that preceded it.

But, of course, it's also a gory slasher. Far more gory, in fact, than the first Psycho. There are many moments of violence in Psycho II, most of them really far over-the-top -- and also, regrettably, not very convincingly executed. They're often moments of unintended comedy rather than horror.

Yet even if the movie loses you for a moment or two when things get hokey, Anthony Perkins pulls you back in, giving a pretty strong performance as Norman Bates. He brings credibility to a situation that's not entirely credible. The fact that he treats it seriously allows the audience to take it seriously. Also returning with Perkins from the original film is Vera Miles as Lila Loomis. Plus, the cast is filled with plenty of recognizable 80s actors, both those who were already established at the time and those who would become more well-known later -- including Meg Tilly, Robert Loggia, and Dennis Franz.

If your instinct is to just leave well enough alone at Psycho and never to see any of the sequels, I get it. (Indeed, I've heard they go sharply downhill after this one.) But when I found myself in the proper frame of mind one night to give Psycho II a try, I actually found it to be reasonably entertaining. I'd say it's worth a B-. Among most horror sequels, that's really quite a high mark.